WWW.RLFANS.COM :: View topic

nick hkr wrote:Why is it not affordable? From that sky angle of the try Smith was unhappy with it looked pretty clear that the ball was still in the field of play when it was touched down by Briscoe however his left hand my have been in touch at the same point. Both the in goal judge and Ganson were very close and had a better view than the touch judge so coupled with that camera angle the correct decision would have probably been a try anyway.

The fact there would be an extra two cameras at games is certainly affordable. They don't need big screens at every game, they don't have them in Aus just red and green lights but with our officials in constant communications with the other officials we don't even need that. Stop the clock and ask for help with the decision.

Two cameras one at each in goal area plus the main camera up high to check for onsides and other infringments is not only affordable but also surprising it hasn't already been done. As in Aus too if no decision can be found on camera then it goes to a 'Refs Call'.

Author:	cravenpark1 [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:20 am ]
Post subject:	VIDIEO REFS
Tony smith calls for video refs at every game I for one agree some games have been lost because the ref cant see every try you do not even need the big screen they don't in australia what do you think

Author:	Mild Rover [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: VIDIEO REFS
Certainly desirable, maybe not affordable.

Author:	bishops finger [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: VIDIEO REFS
Mild Rover wrote:Certainly desirable, maybe not affordable. Definitely not affordable.

Author:	nick hkr [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: VIDIEO REFS
Why is it not affordable? From that sky angle of the try Smith was unhappy with it looked pretty clear that the ball was still in the field of play when it was touched down by Briscoe however his left hand my have been in touch at the same point. Both the in goal judge and Ganson were very close and had a better view than the touch judge so coupled with that camera angle the correct decision would have probably been a try anyway. The fact there would be an extra two cameras at games is certainly affordable. They don't need big screens at every game, they don't have them in Aus just red and green lights but with our officials in constant communications with the other officials we don't even need that. Stop the clock and ask for help with the decision. Two cameras one at each in goal area plus the main camera up high to check for onsides and other infringments is not only affordable but also surprising it hasn't already been done. As in Aus too if no decision can be found on camera then it goes to a 'Refs Call'.

Author:	cod'ead [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: VIDIEO REFS
nick hkr wrote:Why is it not affordable? From that sky angle of the try Smith was unhappy with it looked pretty clear that the ball was still in the field of play when it was touched down by Briscoe however his left hand my have been in touch at the same point. Both the in goal judge and Ganson were very close and had a better view than the touch judge so coupled with that camera angle the correct decision would have probably been a try anyway. The fact there would be an extra two cameras at games is certainly affordable. They don't need big screens at every game, they don't have them in Aus just red and green lights but with our officials in constant communications with the other officials we don't even need that. Stop the clock and ask for help with the decision. Two cameras one at each in goal area plus the main camera up high to check for onsides and other infringments is not only affordable but also surprising it hasn't already been done. As in Aus too if no decision can be found on camera then it goes to a 'Refs Call'. You would need a minimum two, more likely three cameras at each end. You will also need bodies to operate them. We're not talking Sony Handycams here, although we wouldn't require 1080p HiDef, they would still need to be high quality optics. The operators would also need to be trained cameramen, used to shooting dynamic sports. There would also need to be a recording/viewing suite with, apart from the video ref, at least one more technician. Now multiply that lot by five. If our game was as rich as the NRL, we could possibly justify the expense but as I suggested on the subject of Tony Smith's comments: "what would he rather spend his money on, Trent Waterhouse or a video ref?"

WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/

VIDIEO REFS https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=518462	Page 1 of 3

Author:	bishops finger [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: VIDIEO REFS
Well said to the above 2 posters.

Author:	tiger2000 [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: VIDIEO REFS
I beleive the figure quoted after the 2009 trial was about £50,000/match. The only way I could see that working was if Sky covered all games similar to their Premier League coverage, but I doubt that there is the demand.

Author:	Wellsy13 [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: VIDIEO REFS
tiger2000 wrote:I beleive the figure quoted after the 2009 trial was about £50,000/match. The only way I could see that working was if Sky covered all games similar to their Premier League coverage, but I doubt that there is the demand. Not sure it would be as much as that. That's £6.5m a season. The report says it would cost a six-figure sum each season. £6.5m is a pretty large seven-figure sum. The largest six-figure sum would leave us at around £7.5k a game.

Author:	bishops finger [ Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: VIDIEO REFS
I think Smiths right, it should be all or nothing, not just the televised game. I don't know how much it would cost but I'm pretty sure well never see it at every ground.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/