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?"
_zps67e534e4.jpg)
