By Dr Bob Phillips @drbobphillips
Now, anyone who is waiting until August for the Championship to get televised (and presumably video refs with the games) might be annoyed by another rant about the use of the square in the air.
Sorry.
But I’m guessing that most folk will be watching a bit of SL or representative action in the meantime. And, perhaps, someone somewhere on a social media site or blog may say something a bit like
“The video ref F**ING SH**FTED us, it is SO UNFAIR that all games don’t have them”
Well, unfair on who?
If Team A play Team B, both groups are subject to the rule of the slo-mo attention grabbing suit wearers whenever the eye-catching chap (unless we have a really rapid promotion of the very few female refs, it’ll be a chap) on the pitch asks them. It’s not going to be unfair on Team A or Team B; both have the same restrictions and annoyances. Sure - the games may have more tries chalked off, but the same opportunity for wiping is present for both sides. The only thing that it might do is alter the overall scores (reducing them?) or points difference.
So what about Team C and Team D, who aren’t under the glare? Well they might get away with more subtle things -- but again, both teams will get away with them, or not, equally. And if it’s not equal, that’s not the lack of a video ref but the skill of the on-field officials that’s an issue. It’s fair to both.
It might be unfair if, at the end of the season, we find that Team D and Team A are identical on points, and it’s all down to points for vs points against, and on top of that, one team has had fewer video games and takes the prize. But this must be as uncommon as requiring an all-in-cage fight between mascots to determine league table position.
(Take an extreme alternative example to think about the same point another way. Say instead of the video ref, the thing that varied was that some games were played only allowing 5 interchanges instead of 10. The coaches would, perhaps, play this match a little differently, but both teams would have the same handicap, and if the number of matches played this way was even, it would be ‘fair’ both within the match and across the league.)
Irritating, inconsistent, and irrational the decisions made by the video ref may be - but having them is no more ‘unfair’ than any other official.
Now, anyone who is waiting until August for the Championship to get televised (and presumably video refs with the games) might be annoyed by another rant about the use of the square in the air.
Sorry.
But I’m guessing that most folk will be watching a bit of SL or representative action in the meantime. And, perhaps, someone somewhere on a social media site or blog may say something a bit like
“The video ref F**ING SH**FTED us, it is SO UNFAIR that all games don’t have them”
Well, unfair on who?
If Team A play Team B, both groups are subject to the rule of the slo-mo attention grabbing suit wearers whenever the eye-catching chap (unless we have a really rapid promotion of the very few female refs, it’ll be a chap) on the pitch asks them. It’s not going to be unfair on Team A or Team B; both have the same restrictions and annoyances. Sure - the games may have more tries chalked off, but the same opportunity for wiping is present for both sides. The only thing that it might do is alter the overall scores (reducing them?) or points difference.
So what about Team C and Team D, who aren’t under the glare? Well they might get away with more subtle things -- but again, both teams will get away with them, or not, equally. And if it’s not equal, that’s not the lack of a video ref but the skill of the on-field officials that’s an issue. It’s fair to both.
It might be unfair if, at the end of the season, we find that Team D and Team A are identical on points, and it’s all down to points for vs points against, and on top of that, one team has had fewer video games and takes the prize. But this must be as uncommon as requiring an all-in-cage fight between mascots to determine league table position.
(Take an extreme alternative example to think about the same point another way. Say instead of the video ref, the thing that varied was that some games were played only allowing 5 interchanges instead of 10. The coaches would, perhaps, play this match a little differently, but both teams would have the same handicap, and if the number of matches played this way was even, it would be ‘fair’ both within the match and across the league.)
Irritating, inconsistent, and irrational the decisions made by the video ref may be - but having them is no more ‘unfair’ than any other official.