• ValleyFloydJam@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is why I question how needed it truly is, that work is done by an image.

    Now releasing the key moments right after they happen, like team radio in F1 like be interesting.

    • HattrickMahomes@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      in the NFL it’s not the same as in rugby (don’t know cricket), the way it’s done in the NFL is very similar to what they trialled at the World Cup in ANZ, where the referee explains the decision afterwards.

      rugby on the other hand broadcasts the whole interaction between referee and VAR

      • halbpro@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Rugby broadcasts so much of what the referee says and it’s honestly great for the sport. Shows how players and refs should interact, gives a model for all levels of the sport.

        • ValleyFloydJam@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          But it’s all performative, they know and act like they’re talking live on tv.

          I kinda prefer the unvarnished chaos we get to hear with VAR.

          Also what’s being said is pretty much what you expect to hear.

          • G_Morgan@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            But it’s all performative, they know and act like they’re talking live on tv.

            Which is fine. They are operating to a standard and if they don’t do so it becomes obvious live on TV.

      • ValleyFloydJam@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Explains is over egging it a tad.

        They pretty much just announce the call, if they make one.

        If they don’t make one they won’t.

        Hell this week they announced one, got a quick review, it changed and they didn’t announce it.

        If they put the actual NFL system in place people would lose there minds. Key fouls not reviewable, the flawed challenge system, the random quick reviews, the resistance to using tech (so goal line would be gone) and they will auto check a play that’s been ruled a TD but not one that might be but isn’t given on the field.

        So a if a goal was given offside it wouldn’t be checked automatically.

        And while some people think refs guess in football, in the NFL they really guess at scoring players there’s no way they can be 100% sure about and review doesn’t have an angle either way.

  • halbpro@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Rugby broadcasts so much of what the referee says and it’s honestly great for the sport. Shows how players and refs should interact, gives a model for all levels of the sport.

    • ValleyFloydJam@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      But it’s all performative, they know and act like they’re talking live on tv.

      I kinda prefer the unvarnished chaos we get to hear with VAR.

      Also what’s being said is pretty much what you expect to hear.

      • G_Morgan@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        But it’s all performative, they know and act like they’re talking live on tv.

        Which is fine. They are operating to a standard and if they don’t do so it becomes obvious live on TV.

  • HattrickMahomes@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    in the NFL it’s not the same as in rugby (don’t know cricket), the way it’s done in the NFL is very similar to what they trialled at the World Cup in ANZ, where the referee explains the decision afterwards.

    rugby on the other hand broadcasts the whole interaction between referee and VAR

    • halbpro@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Rugby broadcasts so much of what the referee says and it’s honestly great for the sport. Shows how players and refs should interact, gives a model for all levels of the sport.

      • ValleyFloydJam@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        But it’s all performative, they know and act like they’re talking live on tv.

        I kinda prefer the unvarnished chaos we get to hear with VAR.

        Also what’s being said is pretty much what you expect to hear.

        • G_Morgan@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          But it’s all performative, they know and act like they’re talking live on tv.

          Which is fine. They are operating to a standard and if they don’t do so it becomes obvious live on TV.

    • ValleyFloydJam@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Explains is over egging it a tad.

      They pretty much just announce the call, if they make one.

      If they don’t make one they won’t.

      Hell this week they announced one, got a quick review, it changed and they didn’t announce it.

      If they put the actual NFL system in place people would lose there minds. Key fouls not reviewable, the flawed challenge system, the random quick reviews, the resistance to using tech (so goal line would be gone) and they will auto check a play that’s been ruled a TD but not one that might be but isn’t given on the field.

      So a if a goal was given offside it wouldn’t be checked automatically.

      And while some people think refs guess in football, in the NFL they really guess at scoring players there’s no way they can be 100% sure about and review doesn’t have an angle either way.

  • domalino@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Either way the next IFAB meeting is in March so it can’t happen before then.

  • Akira_Nishiki@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Can’t see why anyone would be against this, it won’t fix all the issues but will give fans an insight at least and the decision process and how refs came to the conclusion they did.

  • Tim-Sanchez@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You could probably limit it to just hear the VAR side of things, we don’t need to hear the ref arguing with players. I understand why they show that for complete transparency though, and it would still be a huge step forward.

  • ValleyFloydJam@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Explains is over egging it a tad.

    They pretty much just announce the call, if they make one.

    If they don’t make one they won’t.

    Hell this week they announced one, got a quick review, it changed and they didn’t announce it.

    If they put the actual NFL system in place people would lose there minds. Key fouls not reviewable, the flawed challenge system, the random quick reviews, the resistance to using tech (so goal line would be gone) and they will auto check a play that’s been ruled a TD but not one that might be but isn’t given on the field.

    So a if a goal was given offside it wouldn’t be checked automatically.

    And while some people think refs guess in football, in the NFL they really guess at scoring players there’s no way they can be 100% sure about and review doesn’t have an angle either way.

    • Tim-Sanchez@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You could probably limit it to just hear the VAR side of things, we don’t need to hear the ref arguing with players. I understand why they show that for complete transparency though, and it would still be a huge step forward.