Technology v No Technology

Fandango

No poll put up yet on this and it is a talking point for many sports. Should it be used? Will it slow the game too much? Will it make decisions fairer? If it cant be used on all grounds should it not be used at all? What do we think?

gmale

Had technology been used, Louth would have beaten Meath and I believe Kildare would have beaten Down.

Colm R

Its a complicated. Looking at the big two decesions this year.


1. Sheridans goal - the umpires new it was not a goal, hence they did not react by raising a flag. However the ref, rather than consulting, seemed to give an order to raise the flag, which I believe they cannot refuse to do. You could argue that a simple rule change here, where it should be the umpire that makes the call and it has to be respected by the ref.

2. Coulters goal. Again, even before a replay was seen, the dogs on the street knew it was a square ball. Both umpires messed up here. In fact, the ref gave them every chance to change their mind but they were not for turning.
In this instance, I think we need a procedural change. For example, we have two umpires either side of the goal. Looking at the goal, if the play is coming from the right, then the umpire on the left is best placed to watch the flight of the ball and should concern himself with this. Then the umpire on the right should concern hiumself with the other players in the area. Its just an idea, and I am sure there are flaws there but thats a fact.


If video evidence did exist, then I feel it would have been over used in both of these events, as both incidents should have been spotted by the human eye.


The question is, if we do bring it in, we have to look at the criteria required. For example, in the event of a doubt in a score, do we look at:

-the actions of the last player in possesion.

-the actions of all other player.

-the actions of all events since the last stop in play

-the act of kicking the ball to goal or over the bar, and disregard all previous actions by the player in possesion. (Kildare goal comes to mind herre)

Rugby is very strict on the implementation, but I think rugby is far slower and thus easier to be like this. I think in football, it would become very difficult to decide when video evidence is applicable or not.

After the Louth game earlier in the year, I was all for video evidence. Now I'm not so sure. What I think needs a change is a culture. We need to start looking at referees.

Firstly, I think it should no longer be a requirement that referees be thick skinned. This means changing the attitude of players from under 9 right through to senior.
It also means clubs taking responsibility for the actions spectators, particularly when there is not many spectators present. I would bet that too many, otherwise good referees, packed it in all because of the actions of some parents at a club U12 game. Who knows, these guys could have gone on to be very good referees, one day taking on the All Ireland Final.

Instead, because of what happens at grass roots, we end up with Senior Inter county refs who were able to put up with years of abuse, as opposed to actually have the skill of controlling a game, wether it be umpire, ref or linesman. Thats my €0.02.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

For the square ball rule we just need to change it back to the League version. ATM its impossible to ref. How can any one possibly know if a player is in the square before the ball has arrived, esp when the ball has travelled 25+ yards. Coulters goal was perhaps more obvious than most but this is just an unfortunate incident for a semi final.
As for people claiming Kildare would have beaten Down if the goal hadn't stood thats even more ridiculous. It wasn't like the Louth game where it was the last kick of the game. The game would have taken a completety different direction had there been no goal. For one Kildare wouldn't have been pressing as hard as thay had and probably wouldn't have gotten their goal (which was over carrying, a lot of people seem to be forgetting this). Down looked comfortably the better team on Sunday and deserve their place in the AI Final.

gmale

THFC wrote: »

As for people claiming Kildare would have beaten Down if the goal hadn't stood thats even more ridiculous. It wasn't like the Louth game where it was the last kick of the game.

Had goal line technology been used, Kildare could have been awarded a penalty in the 3rd minute of extra time when they were behind by two...it certainly was the last kick of the game.

mrgaa1

Video evidence is not used in any amateur sport to determine scores. I only know of rugby as being the professional sport that uses - there may be others.

I think we have to look at other things

• remove the square ball rule - no-one from the opposition allowed in the small square except the goalkeeper and the defending team. this removes the onus on square balls.
• in match programmes list the roles of the umpire, linesmen, umpires and fourth official. Most people still think umpires can call square balls - they can't only refs can
• put a crossbar at the top of the posts so that ball must travel between the posts - this would remove in most cases was the ball between the posts or not
• a complete re-write of the rules to make it simpler to adjudicate and follow in terms of officiating. For e.g. you can only fist pass a point - not use the open hand but you can do both when passing a ball to a team mate.

Technology should not be brought in at this stage - it would be unfair. For example Dublin play their games in Croke Park whilst other teams would use their own grounds. Are all grounds suitable? Who pays for this - spectators through ticket prices?
There is more focus on issues now - but thats the way it is. There are more rules and sub-rules and sub-rules of sub-rules. Other sports don't have this. So lets sort it out so that its the same for all levels of our sports before looking to technology.
Technology would lead to paying players as the level of impact of scrutiny would intensify so much that players would ask for something.

gmale

mrgaa1 wrote: »

Video evidence is not used in any amateur sport to determine scores. I only know of rugby as being the professional sport that uses - there may be others.

I think we have to look at other things

• remove the square ball rule - no-one from the opposition allowed in the small square except the goalkeeper and the defending team. this removes the onus on square balls.
• in match programmes list the roles of the umpire, linesmen, umpires and fourth official. Most people still think umpires can call square balls - they can't only refs can
• put a crossbar at the top of the posts so that ball must travel between the posts - this would remove in most cases was the ball between the posts or not
• a complete re-write of the rules to make it simpler to adjudicate and follow in terms of officiating. For e.g. you can only fist pass a point - not use the open hand but you can do both when passing a ball to a team mate.

Technology should not be brought in at this stage - it would be unfair. For example Dublin play their games in Croke Park whilst other teams would use their own grounds. Are all grounds suitable? Who pays for this - spectators through ticket prices?
There is more focus on issues now - but thats the way it is. There are more rules and sub-rules and sub-rules of sub-rules. Other sports don't have this. So lets sort it out so that its the same for all levels of our sports before looking to technology.
Technology would lead to paying players as the level of impact of scrutiny would intensify so much that players would ask for something.

Video and photographic evidence is used in Athletics, an amateur sport.

Great idea about writing the rules in the match program and the roles of each official. Maybe then the poor guys would not be inflicted with undeserved abuse.

You would often see umpires with the sun in their eyes on the Hill16 side, surely sunglasses of some sort would be beneficial as well. They wear peaked caps at times but if you raise your head (following a ball over a crossbar for a point) while wearing a cap, the sun will get in your eyes again. Something small but should be looked at.

I am advocating technology, who should pay for it? Well ticket prices are already extortionate and its not like the GAA pay the players :D

DDC1990

Why not have technology for all Intercounty games.

In rugby they have it for all Magners League, Heiniken Cup, Super 14, Top 14 etc, but dont have it for the AIL. This bothers nobody.

Every intercounty game has camera's at it, from Fermanagh vs Tyrone in Hurling to Kerry vs Cork in Croke Park. All you want is one extra official to be by the moniter hooked up to the referee. If there's a big decision to be made the ref blows his whistle to stop the game. Asks the Video referee if its a goal/square ball/penalty etc. If so the decision is given, if not play restarts with a hop ball. No controversy.

If the video ref cant make a decisive decision, hop ball play on. Simple as.

What is so difficult about this? Why not trial it even? Whats better, this video referee could have the rulebook beside him, because it seems a lot of referees arnt clear on the rules.

This would be used for big decisions around the goalmouth and also for off the ball incidents.

mrgaa1

gmale wrote: »

Video and photographic evidence is used in Athletics, an amateur sport.

I think you'll find that the Athletics we watch on TV is professional - they make some money these days

gmale

mrgaa1 wrote: »

I think you'll find that the Athletics we watch on TV is professional - they make some money these days

On government grants and sponsorhips for things like Lucozade, they dont get a salary

mrgaa1

I think you'll find they get paid to appear and run. Diamond League for example. They are professional in all means. But regardless of this there is no amateur sport that uses video evidence for scores. Athletics, for example, is very simple - first,second,third past the post. Athletics and football can't be compared in this instance.

Diabhal Beag

Until it turns a professional sport there's no point. I'd rather invest money in paying players.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

gmale wrote: »

Had goal line technology been used, Kildare could have been awarded a penalty in the 3rd minute of extra time when they were behind by two...it certainly was the last kick of the game.

For what? Falling over?

Daysha

The GAA don't need to spend mindless amount of money implemented technology for big decisions like last Sunday. They just need competent umpires.

TommyT

The GAA will take steps towards introducing video technology in their games when they meet with Hawk-Eye Innovations representatives tomorrow.

Hawk-Eye claims to be the "most sophisticated officiating tool used in any sport". A ball-tracking device, it has been used in tennis and cricket, and is currently in operation at the US Tennis Open at Flushing Meadows.

Hawk-Eye staff will give a presentation to members of the GAA's research committee tomorrow on how their equipment can end controversial calls in major football and hurling matches.

Research committee secretary Pat Daly said the committee hopes to put forward a proposal next year to tackle disputed refereeing decisions.

"It would be fair to say we would hope to have a proposal ready for next year," he told the Irish Sun.

"They (Hawk-Eye) will give a presentation on Wednesday, we'll see from there."

Colm R

TommyT wrote: »

The GAA will take steps towards introducing video technology in their games when they meet with Hawk-Eye Innovations representatives tomorrow.

Hawk-Eye claims to be the "most sophisticated officiating tool used in any sport". A ball-tracking device, it has been used in tennis and cricket, and is currently in operation at the US Tennis Open at Flushing Meadows.

Hawk-Eye staff will give a presentation to members of the GAA's research committee tomorrow on how their equipment can end controversial calls in major football and hurling matches.

Research committee secretary Pat Daly said the committee hopes to put forward a proposal next year to tackle disputed refereeing decisions.

"It would be fair to say we would hope to have a proposal ready for next year," he told the Irish Sun.

"They (Hawk-Eye) will give a presentation on Wednesday, we'll see from there."

I don't know if Hawk Eye will be any good to be honest. There rarely is doubt on if a ball went over the line or not. More often its the actions of players that need to be called. Perhaps it can be used to make a call on those hard to see points.

aDeener

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Until it turns a professional sport there's no point. I'd rather invest money in paying players.

ahh so you would rather invest in destroying the GAA :rolleyes:

TommyT

If you look at it from an umpires view on Sunday. Clarke played a high ball in, the umpires were following the flight of the ball to see if it was a point. It dropped short and Coulter beat both the defender and the keeper to the ball and the ball ended up in the back of the net. If Hawkeye had been available they would only have had to watch Coulter and not the ball. It was a poor all, but there were plenty of poor calls over the course of the game. 12 steps for the goal? Some very dubious frees for Kildare, 3 minutes injury time, yet the ref played over 5. Kildare can feel aggrieved, but Down were simply that wee bit better and deserved to win.

rebel girl 15

Don't need technology - what is needed is proper training courses for umpires and with that, increase their responsibility on the pitch like being able to call a square ball. There is a list of inter county refs, who each have their own team of umpires that they have for games - so hold one or two training nights each year for them.

Paying players will never happen, its not feasible and it does a disservice to players as well. Investing money in training and paying the team of officials would be way more beneficial than any hawk eye. Technology cannot improve the ref, who has to make the calls at the end of the day, technology or now technology.

I'm surprised that no one had mentioned the possibility of two refs doing the games - think that should be considered before any costly technology or even increasing the powers of the other officials besides the ref

Royal Seahawk

mrgaa1 wrote: »

I think you'll find they get paid to appear and run. Diamond League for example. They are professional in all means. But regardless of this there is no amateur sport that uses video evidence for scores. Athletics, for example, is very simple - first,second,third past the post. Athletics and football can't be compared in this instance.

College football in America is amateur and they use video replay to determine scores, same as college basketball. Do a bit of research before you make such statements, it benefits everyone.

Le King

Royal Seahawk wrote: »

College football in America is amateur and they use video replay to determine scores, same as college basketball. Do a bit of research before you make such statements, it benefits everyone.

Dismissing technology because it's an amateur sport is ridiculous. If the posts where about a meter higher and some sort of instant hawk-eye system was introduced then it would be fine, where an appeal could only be lodged once or twice a game.

But training of the officials is key. Positioning seems to be terrible by officials. Not good enough.

Hammer Archer

DDC1990 wrote: »

Every intercounty game has camera's at it, from Fermanagh vs Tyrone in Hurling to Kerry vs Cork in Croke Park.

Not necessarily. Have you ever seen Nicky Rackard/Lory Meagher games on the Sunday game? Even certain football qualifiers don't have any cameras at them. Last year's game between Meath and Westmeath in Mullingar had no cameras at it.
And it wouldn't be a simple case of having one ordinary camera in the ground. Look at rugby, seeing as you gave the example. For tough decisions the TMO may have to look at 4 or 5 different angles of the same incident in super slow motion in order to make a decision. While this wouldn't necessarily be a problem in Croke Park or Thurles, I can't imagine this being feasible in a Munster football game between Waterford and Clare at Fraher Field or a Lory Meagher Cup game between Warwickshire and Monaghan in Solihull. It would just be too costly to be worthwhile.

hurling_lad

Could someone please explain to me how 'technology' could be used to ensure that every player involved in the build-up to a score takes no more than four steps with the ball in their hands?
Overcarrying is just as illegal as a squareball or falling into the goal with the ball in your hands, so it would have to be looked at just the same and there would probably be a suspicion of overcarrying (taking five steps with the ball) around the buildup to a huge proportion of scores.

Short of having sensors on the ball, on players' hands and on their boots I can't see how technology could assist in this area without huge disruption to games. American football was mentioned in this thread - those games take 3-4 hours to play 60 minutes and I reckon we'd be looking at something similar if we were to take an even-handed approach to video refs, treating all possible infringements equally.

mrgaa1

Royal Seahawk wrote: »

College football in America is amateur and they use video replay to determine scores, same as college basketball. Do a bit of research before you make such statements, it benefits everyone.

well researched but again by its very nature its a very stop/start game.

Let me give you an example IF tecnhology was used to award scores was introduced lets say that on your opponents 21yard line a line ball was given the wrong way - the opponents then went down the field and scored a point. Should technology be used then? What if the player taking the shot was adjudged by the ref that the ball was over-carried and blew for a free out when actually technology shows it wasn't over-carried. WHERE DO WE STOP WITH TECHNOLOGY IF IT IS INTRODUCED?
Better training for officials and better rules will help.
Technology would be such a huge wrong step for the GAA IMO it would weaken our games.

We are a unique sport where no matter if you are 8 years old or 44 years old we all play to the same rules in such a competitive game. By creating special conditions for certain games will cause problems.

adrian522

A lot of silly arguments on this thread

e.g we cant cover every nicky rachard and div 4 league game therefore we shouldn't use it at all. Absolute rubbish. At wimbledon only the show courts have hawkeye and this is accepted, i.e use video evidence where avaialable.

Secondly "Where will it stop, the game will be stopped every 2 mins" Also rubbish. Very specific usage can be applied (e;g in rugby it is only allowed to determine if a try has been scored not for any other reason, or in American Football, tennis and cricket where each side has a certain number of challenges, say 2 per game which means there is no significant slowing down of the game.

Also had to laugh at the argument that says no other amateur sport uses video eveidence, so what? why can't the GAA be the first? We don't always have to be followers.

KenJG

No to technology. Down with this sort of thing! Sure we'd have nothing to talk about!:D
I'm all for anything that helps referees make crucial decisions in big games but not if it gets over complicated, causing games to be stopped and slowed down. There must be some kind of middle ground to introduce technology and train and introduce best possible practices for officials on big game duty.
No offence but an all Ireland semi final is slightly more important than a division 4 league tie, and deserves to be treated as such.

Fandango

For square balls, another alternative which is quite simple is if the 2 umpires decide on which of them watches the ball and which watches the player. The man watching the ball, once it enters the box can signal it somehow, whether it be a shout or a hand signal, and the same goes for the man watching the player. If the umpire watching the player signals first, its a square ball, if not then its fair play.

The arguement that no other amateur sport uses technology isnt valid IMO. What other amateur sports have the same figures for viewers and tickets as GAA?

As Adrian said, it also wont be used for every tackle/pass for the entire play. In Rugby, they dont go back to check if every pass was back in the play beforehand, they simply check if the ball was grounded legally at the end of the play. If this was used in the 2 big cases this year, one result would definately be overturned and quite possibly the other also.

Also, this talk of not using it "because it slows the game" reminds me of the most annoying term used about refs in England for soccer - "He is letting the game flow"....Lets put that in simple terms...."He is ignoring fouls to make the game look a bit better to the spectator". How much would it have slowed Down v Kildare or Louth v Meath for the ref to look up at the big screen in Croker, see the replay and give a foul? About the same amount of time it takes to restart the game after a goal id think.

I definately think it should be used where available for big decisions. A goal, whether in the dying seconds or early on, completely changes the complexion of a match so call me crazy, but i think it should be made sure they are scored within the rules of the game.

hurling_lad

adrian522 wrote: »

A lot of silly arguments on this thread

e.g we cant cover every nicky rachard and div 4 league game therefore we shouldn't use it at all. Absolute rubbish. At wimbledon only the show courts have hawkeye and this is accepted, i.e use video evidence where avaialable.

Secondly "Where will it stop, the game will be stopped every 2 mins" Also rubbish. Very specific usage can be applied (e;g in rugby it is only allowed to determine if a try has been scored not for any other reason, or in American Football, tennis and cricket where each side has a certain number of challenges, say 2 per game which means there is no significant slowing down of the game.

Also had to laugh at the argument that says no other amateur sport uses video eveidence, so what? why can't the GAA be the first? We don't always have to be followers.

If you apply 'very specific usage', then you will almost certainly have to classify some potential fouls (e.g. Squareballs) as requiring video ref intervention while other fouls (e.g. overcarrying) are not allowed for video referral. That would mean that a goal may be disallowed at one end for a 'video-eligible' infringement while a goal at the other end is allowed even though a 'non video-eligible' foul may have occurred - cue uproar.

The comparison with Rugby is not valid, as you are proposing it be used to pick up on fouls in GAA, while it is not used to pick up infringements in Rugby only whether a score is valid or not. This would be comparable to having a video ref look at whether a ball went between the posts or not rather than rule on something that happened before the ball crossed the line. The possibility of having a video ref rule on whether the ball went over the bar should probably be looked at alright.

The idea of having a set number of challenges could easily run into trouble too - e.g. if this system applied to the Leinster final, but Louth had used up all their challenges in the 70 minutes - again, cue uproar.

Note I'm not talking about 'Hawk-eye' or similar here - that could be quite a valuable addition, not least in that it might free up umpires to keep an eye on the the square rather than the ball.

hurling_lad

Just to point out that the 'big decision' on Sunday that people here are referring to was the squareball. This should have been a free-out rather than a goal, but the number of steps taken before the Kildare goal (even before any tackle/foul) was more than four, so that should equally have been a free-out rather than a goal.
Why there is so much focus on one incident and not the other is beyond me.

Fandango

hurling_lad wrote: »

If you apply 'very specific usage', then you will almost certainly have to classify some potential fouls (e.g. Squareballs) as requiring video ref intervention while other fouls (e.g. overcarrying) are not allowed for video referral. That would mean that a goal may be disallowed at one end for a 'video-eligible' infringement while a goal at the other end is allowed even though a 'non video-eligible' foul may have occurred - cue uproar.

I dont see any uproar to be honest. Nobody in any sport expects every play to be scrutinised but decisions for scores should be double-checked if there is any doubt. For example, a handpass at your own 45 doesnt leads directly to a score, throwing the ball over the goal line does.

hurling_lad wrote: »

The comparison with Rugby is not valid, as you are proposing it be used to pick up on fouls in GAA, while it is not used to pick up infringements in Rugby only whether a score is valid or not. This would be comparable to having a video ref look at whether a ball went between the posts or not rather than rule on something that happened before the ball crossed the line. The possibility of having a video ref rule on whether the ball went over the bar should probably be looked at alright.

Actually the ref in Rugby usually asks if there is any reason he shouldnt award the try. The video ref is perfectly entitled to alert the ref to the final pass being forward etc if he spots it. The reason it doesnt happen often is because Rugby refs are hugely trained and tend not to miss very much.

hurling_lad wrote: »

The idea of having a set number of challenges could easily run into trouble too - e.g. if this system applied to the Leinster final, but Louth had used up all their challenges in the 70 minutes - again, cue uproar.

Note I'm not talking about 'Hawk-eye' or similar here - that could be quite a valuable addition, not least in that it might free up umpires to keep an eye on the the square rather than the ball.

There would be uproar here if the ref decided not to bother going to the video ref when there is huge doubt over the goal as challenges are only used when the ref doesnt call for it himself. If this was the case the uproar would be completely valid and the ref should be deported!......Ok, not deported but certainly suspended from reffing another game for a very long time!

Fandango

hurling_lad wrote: »

Just to point out that the 'big decision' on Sunday that people here are referring to was the squareball. This should have been a free-out rather than a goal, but the number of steps taken before the Kildare goal (even before any tackle/foul) was more than four, so that should equally have been a free-out rather than a goal.
Why there is so much focus on one incident and not the other is beyond me.

Very true, but the point is that both could have been overturned if the tech was available. I will say however that a bit of leeway (sp?) is almost always given when it comes to steps but none for square balls. Sure if you pull up every player who overcarries, it will slow the game alot more than a video ref would hehe.

rebel girl 15

Fandango wrote: »

The reason it doesnt happen often is because Rugby refs are hugely trained and tend not to miss very much.

There you go - thats what needs to be done before any technology is brought in, give the refs and umpires increased training (specific umpire training because afaik there is no such thing there!)

hurling_lad

Fandango wrote: »

I dont see any uproar to be honest. Nobody in any sport expects every play to be scrutinised but decisions for scores should be double-checked if there is any doubt. For example, a handpass at your own 45 doesnt leads directly to a score, throwing the ball over the goal line does.

What about the example I gave about a squareball at one end, overcarrying at the other? What about an overcarry out the field for a point at the end of a game that wins or levels the game? You use the phrase 'if there is any doubt', but who is the designated person who raises such doubts - the ref? Martin Sludden didn't seem to have any doubts about the Meath goal when he instructed his umpire to put up the green flag, did he?

Actually the ref in Rugby usually asks if there is any reason he shouldnt award the try. The video ref is perfectly entitled to alert the ref to the final pass being forward etc if he spots it. The reason it doesnt happen often is because Rugby refs are hugely trained and tend not to miss very much.

You're just plain wrong on this one - see rule 6.A.6 here.

There would be uproar here if the ref decided not to bother going to the video ref when there is huge doubt over the goal as challenges are only used when the ref doesnt call for it himself. If this was the case the uproar would be completely valid and the ref should be deported!......Ok, not deported but certainly suspended from reffing another game for a very long time!

So you're back to refs possibly making mistakes on big calls then i.e. square one.

Fandango

hurling_lad wrote: »

What about the example I gave about a squareball at one end, overcarrying at the other? What about an overcarry out the field for a point at the end of a game that wins or levels the game? You use the phrase 'if there is any doubt', but who is the designated person who raises such doubts - the ref? Martin Sludden didn't seem to have any doubts about the Meath goal when he instructed his umpire to put up the green flag, did he?

If it leads "directly" to a goal or a point then it should be checked. Video Technology isnt as black and white as "check everything/check nothing". If the ref decides to allow a few extra steps then he deems it not to be a foul in his book, which i think is a grey area that should be cleared up btw. If he thinks the player may have overcarried, over what he allows, but isnt sure then check it. Sludden is one of those that fall under the "Deported" category. A few who refuses to check with his umpires who showed clear doubt from a far better position should never be allowed officiate again IMO.

hurling_lad wrote: »

You're just plain wrong on this one - see rule 6.A.6 here.

I stand corrected, however your claims that it isnt used to pick up fouls in Rugby is incorrect by the same rule. He is responsible for fouls in the in goal area from my reading. Anyway, thats not the point. You obviously cant use a TMO for every decision but like in Rugby, you should use it for pontentially game changing decisions.

hurling_lad wrote: »

So you're back to refs possibly making mistakes on big calls then i.e. square one.

Im talking about obvious cases in the last 4 months both in The All Ireland and in The World Cup, 2 sports that dont use TMO and almost all the high profile cases from both would be easily cleared up by a TMO. If the ref was competent, he would go to the Video Ref to be certain in most of these cases as there was easily enough doubt voiced by officials and players alike.If he wasnt competent and ignored the obvious doubt, he should be joining Sludden on the sidelines.

Fandango

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

There you go - thats what needs to be done before any technology is brought in, give the refs and umpires increased training (specific umpire training because afaik there is no such thing there!)

Agreed. Umpires are appointed by the ref completely at his choosing afaik, so technically you could have an umpire who has never even watched the game. Obviously the ref chooses people he feels most competent for the job so it wouldnt happen like that but they are doing the job quite often without any training which is crazy!

hurling_lad

Fandango wrote: »

If it leads "directly" to a goal or a point then it should be checked. Video Technology isnt as black and white as "check everything/check nothing". If the ref decides to allow a few extra steps then he deems it not to be a foul in his book, which i think is a grey area that should be cleared up btw. If he thinks the player may have overcarried, over what he allows, but isnt sure then check it. Sludden is one of those that fall under the "Deported" category. A few who refuses to check with his umpires who showed clear doubt from a far better position should never be allowed officiate again IMO.

There is no referee discretion or grey area in the GAA rulebook about the number of steps a player is allowed to take - it's four and overcarrying has exactly the same sanction as a squareball - a free.
You use the phrase "directly", but I can't see any way to define what "directly" could mean in relation to a score - does it mean a foul committed by the scoring player? What if the scoring player is just punching in a cross from another player who took ten steps or picked the ball off the ground? What if there is clear interference by another player that allows the scoring player through on goal unimpeded?

I stand corrected, however your claims that it isnt used to pick up fouls in Rugby is incorrect by the same rule. He is responsible for fouls in the in goal area from my reading. Anyway, thats not the point. You obviously cant use a TMO for every decision but like in Rugby, you should use it for potentially game changing decisions.

Im talking about obvious cases in the last 4 months both in The All Ireland and in The World Cup, 2 sports that dont use TMO and almost all the high profile cases from both would be easily cleared up by a TMO. If the ref was competent, he would go to the Video Ref to be certain in most of these cases as there was easily enough doubt voiced by officials and players alike.If he wasnt competent and ignored the obvious doubt, he should be joining Sludden on the sidelines.

The TMO is used for all tries in rugby, whether the teams are level, where a try would be clearly 'potentially game changing', or whether a team is 100 points ahead.
If a match is a draw, then every single goal or point in that match with a whiff of a foul about it becomes, in hindsight, a 'potentially game changing decision'. If you were to focus only on goals and maybe points scored near the end of a close game that would mean that a dodgy point earlier in a game is treated differently to one at the end of a game, even though a game ends in a draw or a single-point win meaning that all points scored were equally important.

Video technology for anything other than judging whether a ball is wide or a point just wouldn't be practical.

[edit] As for 'obvious cases', I assume you're referring to the Benny Coulter and Joe Sheridan goals, not Gooch's 'free' that he got at the end of the drawn Munster final - how would you legislate for a video ref to adjudicate on that one?

Fulton Crown

Sorry have not read all the thread so forgive me if going over old ground.

Take the Down Goal - and the Meath goal in the Leinster final.

Let's not forget that the GAA as well as the linesmen and referee have two additional people STANDIN BESIDE THE GOAL to adjudicate as necessary.

Everybody could see that the Down forward was in the square before the ball came in.

But the Umpire went IMMEDIATELY for the Green flag...no consultation with anyone.

Who is this guy ? most people will not have heard of him....amateurish in the extreme and unacceptable.

Umpires must be trained and named as part of the match team......

Ian_K

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Sorry have not read all the thread so forgive me if going over old ground.

Take the Down Goal - and the Meath goal in the Leinster final.

Let's not forget that the GAA as well as the linesmen and referee have two additional people STANDIN BESIDE THE GOAL to adjudicate as necessary.

Everybody could see that the Down forward was in the square before the ball came in.

But the Umpire went IMMEDIATELY for the Green flag...no consultation with anyone.

Who is this guy ? most people will not have heard of him....amateurish in the extreme and unacceptable.

Umpires must be trained and named as part of the match team.....

Until now umpires were always selected by the match referee, usually clubmates or friends - people the referee trusted basically

The commentator on Sunday mentioned that two of the umpires were inter-county referees, i assume this is a new initiative by the GAA following the shambolic display by the umpires for the Leinster football final - this is only an assumption though

But as we saw mistakes were still made - the two problems i see with referees acting as umpires is
a) the match referee wouldnt trust them 100%
b) they may not have experience of doing umpire before now (it's actually not as easy as you might assume)

One idea i had was to assemble lots of former referees along with young up-and-coming referees, train them and have them all on a panel of umpires available for major championship matches - again though the issue of trust between umpire and match referee is a major issue

rebel girl 15

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Umpires must be trained and named as part of the match team......

But they are named on the match programme, but not trained

Ian_K wrote: »

But as we saw mistakes were still made - the two problems i see with referees acting as umpires is
a) the match referee wouldnt trust them 100%
b) they may not have experience of doing umpire before now (it's actually not as easy as you might assume)

One idea i had was to assemble lots of former referees along with young up-and-coming referees, train them and have them all on a panel of umpires available for major championship matches - again though the issue of trust between umpire and match referee is a major issue

I think the refs need to be able to trust their umpires - there are 12 or so refs on the inter county panel, who each have their own team of umpires, 4 or 5 people that they trust. Each ref and their team of umpires must attend training session or two, hold one kinda up north, and one kinda down south. That would solve the issue of trust between the refs and the umpires. I wouldn't have up and coming refs doing umpire tbh, if they could be refereeing at a game in their own county rather than doing umpire, and getting experience. It is only with experience that you become a better ref, and be able to let the game flow and get the calls right. It isn't easy being a ref or an umpire

Hawk eye could be used to see if the ball goes over the bar or not, but after that, I couldn't see a further use of technology like a TMO. Investing in training refs and umpires is what is needed to be done big time and increase the panel of refs - the worst thing that can happen a ref is that he makes a mistake in a game, and won't get the chance to make the same call in the same kind of game because he had been dropped from the panel

SeaFields

I think this debate has correctly ventured off topic to analysing the umpires roles in some of the big decisions this year. Countless times it has been shown that they can get some relatively easy, but very important decisions wrong.

In rubgy (bah! foreign game ) and there's an off the ball incident or a tight call which the linesman has a better view off, you see the ref consulting his linesman, who in turn makes the decision and the ref implements it. Simple. (i.e. in rugby - off the ball tussle, ref goes to linesman "what happened?" linesman says something like " blue 15 struck red 15, its a red card." Ref implements his recommendation)

Is there a single that the umpire can use to alert the ref? i.e. last weekend Down score goal, everyone expects flag to go up but instead he raises his arm or something, ref consults, it was a squareball, free out. Do they enjoy the glory of raising the flag or something?!

In my humble opinion there is no need to go as far as technology but instead to specifically define the responsibilites of the umpires and place it in the rules that the ref must consult when there is uncertainty.

Me has a feeling we haven't seen the end of bad decisions this year

Ian_K

I think it's gone off topic because most GAA fans do agree that video technology is not really an option in our games - what the majority of fans want to see is competent referees, umpires and linesmen across the board.
I understand they are all human and will make mistakes but the right people should be selected in the first place, people who are not afraid to consult with others and dont let their egos get in the way of making the right calls one way or the other.

I know people who officiate games for a bit of attention or purely for money and thats not the kind of person you want at all, what you want are humble people in it for the love of the game, as bent as that sounds.

Some officials seem to think asking the help of others is a sign of weakness, we want people with cool heads who take their time, avail of any assistance going and get it right in the end.



And btw linesmen have a button on their flags that buzz the referee if needed and umpires can put their hands outstretched if the need a word with the ref - we dont see them stepping in often enough though

rebel girl 15

Ian_K wrote: »

I understand they are all human and will make mistakes but the right people should be selected in the first place, people who are not afraid to consult with others and dont let their egos get in the way of making the right calls one way or the other.

I know people who officiate games for a bit of attention or purely for money and thats not the kind of person you want at all, what you want are humble people in it for the love of the game, as bent as that sounds.

Not at inter county level, anybody doing it is more than likely losing money rather than earning it

Fandango

hurling_lad wrote: »

There is no referee discretion or grey area in the GAA rulebook about the number of steps a player is allowed to take - it's four and overcarrying has exactly the same sanction as a squareball - a free.
You use the phrase "directly", but I can't see any way to define what "directly" could mean in relation to a score - does it mean a foul committed by the scoring player? What if the scoring player is just punching in a cross from another player who took ten steps or picked the ball off the ground? What if there is clear interference by another player that allows the scoring player through on goal unimpeded?

The TMO is used for all tries in rugby, whether the teams are level, where a try would be clearly 'potentially game changing', or whether a team is 100 points ahead.
If a match is a draw, then every single goal or point in that match with a whiff of a foul about it becomes, in hindsight, a 'potentially game changing decision'. If you were to focus only on goals and maybe points scored near the end of a close game that would mean that a dodgy point earlier in a game is treated differently to one at the end of a game, even though a game ends in a draw or a single-point win meaning that all points scored were equally important.

Video technology for anything other than judging whether a ball is wide or a point just wouldn't be practical.

[edit] As for 'obvious cases', I assume you're referring to the Benny Coulter and Joe Sheridan goals, not Gooch's 'free' that he got at the end of the drawn Munster final - how would you legislate for a video ref to adjudicate on that one?

I wont comment on all that right now as ive had a few drinks and its late but Goochs free at the end was not a free as far as im concerned. However if the ref decided to go to a TMO or if Cork had a challenge left (ie. played them smart) it could have been changed. Altho that brings up another subject which i know some here wont admit and maybe annoys them, but refs playing for a draw. Thats what that free was all about.

Your right in that TMO wont solve every problem but that, alongside some decent coaching for refs, linesmen and umpires would make the game far fairer.


If what ive just said makes no sense, ill put a proper reply tomorrow as a few drinks are in me belly.....if it makes sense...score!

FeistyOneYouAre

hurling_lad wrote: »

Just to point out that the 'big decision' on Sunday that people here are referring to was the squareball. This should have been a free-out rather than a goal, but the number of steps taken before the Kildare goal (even before any tackle/foul) was more than four, so that should equally have been a free-out rather than a goal.
Why there is so much focus on one incident and not the other is beyond me.

If you're trying to compare the Down goal to the Kildare goal you really haven't got a clue about the game. The Down goal came when Kildare were only 2 points up (should have been 3 only for a disallowed point) and Kildare were on top of Down. From the second the goal was given the game completely changed. Down got all the momentum and pushed on to lead by 5 points at half time. The Kildare goal came with 12 minutes to go when they were 7 points down, all the goal did was give them a glimmer of hope. Had the Down goal been disallowed, whether by the umpires opening their eyes or by technology being introduced, the game would have panned out completely differently, thats not saying Kildare would have definitely won but lack of technology gave Down 3 points and all the momentum. Thats not right.

hurling_lad

FeistyOneYouAre wrote: »

If you're trying to compare the Down goal to the Kildare goal you really haven't got a clue about the game. The Down goal came when Kildare were only 2 points up (should have been 3 only for a disallowed point) and Kildare were on top of Down. From the second the goal was given the game completely changed. Down got all the momentum and pushed on to lead by 5 points at half time. The Kildare goal came with 12 minutes to go when they were 7 points down, all the goal did was give them a glimmer of hope. Had the Down goal been disallowed, whether by the umpires opening their eyes or by technology being introduced, the game would have panned out completely differently, thats not saying Kildare would have definitely won but lack of technology gave Down 3 points and all the momentum. Thats not right.

It's only in hindsight that you can say one decision was more important than the other - if Kalum King hadn't got his fingers to the Kildare free at the end, they would have won the match. If that had happened, do you honestly believe anyone would be discussing the Benny Coulter squareball?

mrgaa1

From the INDO http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/use-of-video-technology-wont-work-in-the-gaa-2319402.html

THE biggest mistake when confronting a problem is to apply the wrong solution which merely adds to the quandary.
It's more sensible to strip down the original difficulty and work on correcting it by removing the malfunctioning parts. After all, if the brakes on your car are faulty, you don't respond by putting a block under the accelerator to keep the speed down, making it easier to stop.
That's why proposals to introduce video technology in an attempt to reduce the impact of officiating errors at GAA games are -- in my view -- not only the wrong solution, but would actually worsen the situation.
Kildare won't agree after conceding a crucial goal to Down last Sunday when they should have been awarded a free out for a square ball infringement against Benny Coulter, but what of Eamonn Callaghan's goal? It looked as if he had taken too many steps before booting the ball to the Down net, but referee Pat McEnaney adjudged otherwise so the goal stood. If technology were in use would it have been applied to disallow one goal, but not the other?
Selective
The key point about using technology to decide on infringements is this: it cannot be used on a selective basis. It would be easy to apply it only for square ball disputes or -- as in the case of Meath's controversial goal against Louth in the Leinster final -- to ascertain if the ball was dispatched over the line in a legal manner, but it would also be grossly unfair.
A player taking too many steps before scoring -- or, indeed, before passing to a player who scores -- is as guilty of an offence as an early intruder into the square. And what of the sly push in the back in the build-up to a score or the illegal pick-up or handpass? Aren't they as influential as the square ball?
Once technology applies, it has to be used everywhere and not just in the final seconds before a score is completed. Otherwise, it's a total sham. Presidential candidate Liam O'Neill says that "in the determination of scores and square balls that result in scores, recourse to the video should be used."
However, all scores originate somewhere so an offence committed 100 metres from goal can be just as crucial as the square ball in terms of scoring a goal, yet nobody is advocating reviewing action that far back, or, indeed, as far back as Callaghan was when he tested the steps rule on Sunday.
One of the biggest red herrings tossed into the debating pool on the technology issue relates to its use in rugby. Unlike GAA where its advocates want to see it introduced to decide on offences, it applies in rugby ONLY to ascertain whether the ball has been grounded properly over the try line or, if required, to decide if a conversion or penalty has gone between the posts.
It has no function whatsoever in relation to offences, whether they apply to offside, a forward pass, or whatever. Presumably that's because if it did include those areas, many tries would be followed by demands that the referee consult the video-ref to ascertain if an offence had been committed in the build-up.
If the GAA introduces a video ref to adjudicate on certain offences, the pressure on the match referee to refer 'upstairs' all the time will be enormous and will result in more rows than it resolves.
However, that doesn't mean that there can't be a major reduction on mistakes caused by human error. Take the square ball issue. Under the experimental regulations which applied in this year's NFL, Coulter could have been standing in the square long before the ball came in and, provided he didn't foul an opponent, would be perfectly entitled to challenge for the ball as he did last Sunday. For reasons unrelated to logic, Congress voted down the proposal together with some other enterprising advances in other areas.
So, instead of introducing video technology to police a rule that's unnecessary and unhelpful, why not banish it in favour of the sensible replacement which operated last spring?
As for the increasing number of disputes over whether a shot is a score or a wide, the system which Sportsworld Netting, Scariff and Goalpost Ireland, Tallow are working on appears to have considerable merit.
In broad terms, it involves a second post fitted behind the first with a net attached to both so that if the ball is wide it will clearly drop outside. The system also involves increasing the height of the posts as it can be extremely difficult to adjudicate on a ball that flies well above the standard uprights.
Fitting such a mechanism to decide on scores is altogether different from introducing technology to decide on where -- and indeed whether -- a foul has been committed before or during the making of a score. Technology might sound like the answer to human error, but if introduced to decide on fouls, then it will cause utter chaos because apart from anything else, opinions will still be divided irrespective of how many times the rewind button is pressed.

sportinglegend

I would like to see Video Technology brought in but we need a good system for managing how we use it.

I think the best way forward would be to allow each team 2/3 challenges in which they can ask the referee to review a score/foul/booking. Only the captain would be allowed to make the call and ask the referee to review it. Further to this I believe that Referee's should communicate with teams better as per Rugby where the only communication allowed would be between Captain and The Ref possibly extending to a Vice captain or 2 pre-nominated players.

DH2K9

What will people have to talk about if technology was brought in, nothing. Everyone makes mistake, accept it.

gmale

If video ref was to be brought in, my preference would be to use it for confirmation of scores only. The ref on the pitch can if he choses refer to the video ref to confirm if a shot taken resulted in a score or if it went wide or if the shot that resulted in a score was legal (meath v louth and kidlare v down). I would leave it up to the ref on the pitch to decide if he wants to use the video ref or not.

I would not use the video ref for normal game play or off the ball incidents as it could slow the game down and the speed of the game is what makes Hurling and Football so fantastic.

Fandango

DH2K9 wrote: »

What will people have to talk about if technology was brought in, nothing. Everyone makes mistake, accept it.

Thats the right attitude, everyone makes mistakes so just accept it even tho it is easily corrected. Who cares about fair play eh?