Officiating ...Lions/Sharks

This from Lewis: .. 'Officiating comes under the spotlight again Sharks fans were understandably fuming after Saturdays’ heart-breaking defeat against the Lions. It’s terrible to highlight officiating as a factor that played a part in the outcome of such an enthralling encounter, but there were certainly some contentious decisions late in the game from referee Marius van der Westhuizen. He first waved away what looked to be an off-the-ball tackle from Lions wing Courtnall Skosan, at a time when the Sharks were still hanging on to a one-point lead, with the hosts eventually moving upfield from there to be awarded the match-winning penalty. Then right on the final whistle, the Sharks appeared to have won the ball and cried out for a penalty, but Van der Westhuizen saw it differently and awarded the Lions a scrum that ended the game. The Sharks certainly can’t blame the referee for defeat, but they do have some reason to feel aggrieved.' ... And this from Mallet: ... 'I thought Stephan Lewies’ yellow card was harsh and very tough on him. The referee had warned the loosehead prop about his scrummaging. But to give a yellow card, in the red zone admittedly, without a team warning, was harsh. To send a player off for streaking offside in that situation, as a first offence in the red zone in a quarter-final, was a tough call. In addition, the Lions scored two tries, so in that period there were 10 points scored against the Sharks.' .... With a battery of four officials we are still getting too many unexpected calls, mostly because the match referee is largely unchallenged. It's rare and sometimes fruitless for the video ref to intervene.

There were a few questionable decisions, but there always are. I must say I found the sending off of Lewies to be very unfair, for the same reasons Mallet has pointed out. But all that said, it is the nature of knockout rugby. After just about any knockout game the referee discussion is sure to follow. There are two issues here. Why ref's don't use technology every time they are unsure? And why they don't take an extra  moment or two to reflect on every call before blowing the whistle? Especially in knockout rugby.  
At the end of the day, the biggest factor is probably pride. When a ref has made a call, and gotten it wrong, them referring to the linesma n or TV ref too many times, would probably be viewed as a poor reflection on their abilities, hence them sticking with incorrect decisions, rather than losing on field respect and admitting repeatedly getting it wrong.  

In the end, if Jantjies had not kicked as poorly as he did, the Sharks would never have been in the game anyway. So the better team probably did win. 

 Well said Bluebok, if Jantjies brought his kicking boots or if Bosche had sunk one of those two drop attempts the refereeing would'nt be spoken of.

 Ou rooitwits crowd whining about the refs again?

Who are "rooitwits crowd"? I can say with some certainty that Moz is not his crowd. I am nobodies crowd, and xavi is pretty independent as well. Also, I was not whining about the ref. I was pointing out that all ref's make mistakes and offering explanations why, and possible remedies. Xavi agreed with my assessment, and Moz can account for himself.  
In other words, you have everything completely wrong. But its okay Beens , I am here to help steer you in the right direction.  

I think "rooitwits crowd" refers to people with an IQ higher than their age. I guess that's everyone except Moffie and Baboon-ou!

 
"Ou rooitwits crowd whining about the refs again?" asks the King of whining and moaning

Personally I don't see how Skosan's tackle on van Wyk wasn't called.....he wrapped his arms around him and upset his balance. The incident was called to his attention and he treated it without any serious consideration.

Hail to the Lions who are the top SA team and deserve to go through to the next round.
But something must be done to raise the bar with respect to officials handling these games.
It happens each and every round without fail.
Either the officials are out of their depth or just plain stupid for not calling for a review of incidents that take place on the field.
Time for the officials to be officially assessed after each game and the assessment made public.  

As Robert du Preez said....."I can't comment on bad officiating".

 Everyone was against DRS and the masses regurgitated arguments about umpiring tradition blah blah blah. 
The fact is that no sports fan likes having to debate poor decisions that influence games. It makes victories less sweet and losses ever more bitter.
My view is, screw tradition and do everything possible to get calls correct as often as possible.
How many arguments are there now that DRS/reviews are utilised in cricket? Hardly any. Is anyone complaining? No. Why? Because fans come to watch a game between two teams, not to philosophise about the inherent human error in reffing. 
This argument about the fact that even since DRS there are still mistakes made is the equivalent of saying that it takes a period of time to fly somewhere and it takes a period of time to swim. Thus both take a period of time so each is equally efficient. Absolute bollocks.
Yes, cricket and rugby are different games and interpretation of the law plays a bigger part in the latter. Despite that, there are still numerous instances where identical events occur, the refs have the full benefit of slow motion and yet make entirely different calls. Subsequently it's often shown that the refs call was beyond interpretation and to the point where he just made up a rule or that his ruling was contrary to the rules IE he didn't know the rule. 
But then, how do we focus only on refs when disciplinary bodies make exactly the same types of errors after the benefit of weeks of preparation for a single ruling. 
One simple idea that I got while watching the ABs and England some time back was to make sure that one team always plays in either white or a shocking variant of blue, green, yellow or orange and the other team in a dark colour. It would make general infringements a lot easier to spot. 
Often times when the Boks play the ABs it's tough to see what's happening because black and dark green are difficult to tell apart on short notice amidst chaos. 
Also, the players already wear trackers. It would not be totally unreasonable to assume that one could write a software that would be able to pick up a vast array of offside infringements too. In fact software similar to that already exists and is in use for other applications. One would simply needs to adjust its parameters. 
Static wide angle cameras. These need to be made better use of. The sideline camera guy more often than not fails to pick up conclusive angles in various situations. Simple corner, 22, and 50 static cams would provide a plethora of angles currently not available and will pick up plenty of off the ball activity, off sides, forward passes, grounding, obstructions etc etc.
Just some ideas. Anything to make the refs life easier right?

I agree 100%. I f the technology is available, why not use it? It makes absolutely no sense not to. I also agree 100% regarding breaking the tradition of the human error element. It will always be there, but where technology can eliminate it, it absolutely should be eliminated. In what world is an error in judgement okay, because retaining tradition is more important than fairness? 
Very well put Plum.  

 I'm all for it Plum...almost like robot reffing...robot assisted reffing!

Checking the offside line seems a good place to start.

"If the technology is available, why not use it?"

Well for starters it causes just as many arguments as refs calls. We can watch endless replays frame by frame and yet we tend to disagree with the TMO about as often as we disagree with the ref.

What's the point of using the technology and disrupting the game if it causes just as many arguments and wrong decisions?

Right now I reckon the only thing the TMO is good for is determining if there's been a foot out of touch. Most of the other "try or no try" decisions or referrals for foul play cause just as much confusion and unhappiness as they would without the technology.

The other frustrating thing about the technology is when you see what you think what might be a forward pass for example but the game goes on and a try is scored . . . only for the ref to go back to the forward pass that he should have made a call on and several minutes of rugby is simply swept away when we go back for the scrum. It's almost as if the refs are adopting a wait and see attitude because they can always double check later using the technology. I'd far rather watch rugby that I know is going to count for something than phases of play that may or may not be discarded depending on a subsequent TMO decision.

I don't think this technology you guys are calling for is helping rugby much and I'd be inclined to use it much less until it can be improved and provide clearer and more accurate results.

The technology needs to improve, similar to how it is in cricket. Perhaps the ball, players and field could have small microchips that link to the camera and time system. 
This could help improve officiating like offside and forward passes.
The referee could carry a phone/computer that records the current play, and last play, players as they become offside (being in front of the ball). And displaying infringements in real-time on the side of the stadium screen.
Forward passes can be more scientific of what exactly a forward pass is. (Hands pointed backwards- or also allowing passes that drift forward due to running speed). 
It would be clear if the ball hits the touch-line or try line etc. Mobile phones satellites can track your exact location to millimetres- especially in a small space like a rugby field . 

There is one issue that everybody seems to lose sight of. The laws of rugby is written, rightfully, for the game being played all over the world and in many different circ.umstances. In order to accommodate all these peculiar systems and pieces of technology we would need a different set of laws for test rugby where that technology is available and another set of laws for games played between two clubs in Upper Basildon. Maybe they should rather start thinking about cutting down on the use of technology. My view has always been that players make more mistakes in games than referees and games are more often, probably almost always, lost due to mistakes by players, rather than through mistakes by referees.

@Ceradayne, Upper Basildon do not have a TMO or a big screen- but they still get by, through being more dependent on the referee. The rules are not changing- it is just the implementation that would change. 
If some pub team like Upper Basildon lose a close game due to a few bad decisions, it is not a big deal. The speed of computer hardware doubles every 18 months, so technology will become more available- even for a pub team. An new Apple Iphone or Google Android phone is more powerful than a computer server was 5 years ago. 

Another consideration is whether the technology is making the reffing better, because of the scrutiny. And despite the poor calls, I'm guessing it is. TMO calls on foul play are slowing the game though....that might have been a mistake. Let the ref call for a foul play review, stop the TMOs from acting like tattletales.

@SB. My 19Voer tsek Vauxhall is more valuable to me than the cars of a guy who has a Masserati and two Ferraris. The game for the players from Upper Basildon is as important to them as a test match to others. Fact is that there are more club and other games being played on any given match day than tests. I have been involved in sports management (rugby and wrestling) for many years both on club and provincial level to know how important it is for the players. Think about this. All these fancy BS and stuffing around with the laws of the game has become necessary and in demand due to a lot of people watching the games on TV, while it fcuks around the vast majority of people actually actively taking part in the sport all over the world. The laws are getting so technical that even the players and referees at the top level, who are in the game full time, are battling their arses off to keep up. How do they expect the rest of the rugby population, mostly part timers, to keep up and stay in touch? Everybody is shouting for the game to be grown and for more and more to get involved but the ones at grass root level and in the feeder system are the ones who are neglected the most. They irony is that they are mostly the ones who is in the sport for the love of the game and not for the money.

 The use of tech can only improve officiating and in the long run, better officiating at top levels will filter down to the lower levels too. Everyone gets a better deal. Having said that, there are lots of things wrong in the game that doesn't need tech to be fixed. Maybe they can start there first.

 "Well for starters it causes just as many arguments as refs calls. We can watch endless replays frame by frame and yet we tend to disagree with the TMO about as often as we disagree with the ref." Regardless, it solves many situations where the only other option would have been a guess with a 50% chance that said guess would result in the wrong decision being made. It solves more arguments than it creates.

"I don't think this technology you guys are calling for is helping rugby much and I'd be inclined to use it much less until it can be improved and provide clearer and more accurate results." Not a single sport is worse off after making use of technology for officiating. So the evidence is stacked against you here Rooi. Rugby is unique, but so is tennis, cricket, baseball etc etc.


"My view has always been that players make more mistakes in games than referees and games are more often, probably almost always, lost due to mistakes by players, rather than through mistakes by referees." Exactly the type of appeal to tradition argument that flies in the face of logic. Not having a go Cera but its quite obvious that players are going to make mistakes.That's what sport is about. But this in no way means that we should not try to rule mistakes out of officiating as best we can. They are two unrelated issues. Almost like a kid failing an exam and then claiming the teacher should pass him since the teacher himself is not perfect.

For me the best argument is indeed that more technology means slowing the game down and the possible injuries that could result. Still, that's not an insurmountable problem. I swear I've seen people jog on the spot when the traffic light is red

 "My view has always been that players make more mistakes in games than referees and games are more often, probably almost always, lost due to mistakes by players, rather than through mistakes by referees." Exactly the type of appeal to tradition argument that flies in the face of logic. Not having a go Cera but its quite obvious that players are going to make mistakes.That's what sport is about. But this in no way means that we should not try to rule mistakes out of officiating as best we can. They are two unrelated issues. Almost like a kid failing an exam and then claiming the teacher should pass him since the teacher himself is not perfect. 
@Plum, like you, I am not having a go either but allow me to elaborate. I have been getting irritated with this habit of supporters and often players, the media, coaches, etc, etc, often pointing fingers at match officials. How is it that everybody are always happy to agree that officials are as much part of the game as are the players, until the final whistle when we have to start looking why one of the two sides lost. It is at that moment that we decide to find somebody to blame. Some people like to have a go at the players they dislike the most while most others' first port of call is the match officials. Fact is that by far the biggest majority of critics of the match officials have never in their lives taken a whistle to officiate any sporting event. 
If you have done so, you would know how easy it is to make a mistake. Or to put it differently, you would know how difficult it is never to make a mistake and to be 100% correct at all times. It is not humanly possible. Although I am quite happy that technology is used and I am also quite happy that  they are trying to make improvements in technology, I sometimes wonder if the technology is not a disadvantage to the officials. I think that it makes them lazy in a way. It could take away the need to always be super alert and always try to anticipate what the players are going to do next. 
I cannot speak from the point of view of a rugby referee to explain what I am trying to put across, since I have no experience of refereeing rugby games. I do have many years of experience of officiating wrestling at a high level, though, and  the principles of refereeing cuts across most sporting disciplines. The one principle that does cut across all disciplines is this one: "Always blow what you have seen and never what you thought you saw". That was the very first thing that I learnt about officiating and it is one that I always put across when I got in a position where I had to train match officials. To do that, you have to be able to kind of get in the heads of who you are officiating and be able to anticipate what they are going to do. Relying too heavily on technology could, IMO, take away the need for that. I sometimes also worry that the constant reverting to technology could distract the referees. 
I can clearly remember how, at times while officiating a wrestling match, you could clearly see when either of the two wrestlers lost concentration. The interesting thing was that I could also, while evaluating match officials, notice the moment a match official gets distracted and lose concentration. That was normally also the moment that mistakes started creeping in. That was moments when you saw officials stop actions prematurely, or ask for confirmation of a fall prematurely, or miss that a wrestler has stepped out of the wrestling area, etc, etc. Fortunately wrestling works a bit different from rugby and most mistakes could be rectified immediately due to the fact that you have a referee whose assessment is confirmed by the judge and when there is a difference between the two of them, you have a mat chairman who acts as an arbiter. 
My thought is that if there is a need the referee and one of, or even both, the ARs could have a quick chat and if they are not sure, have a look at the big screen and then make a decision and carry on. If it becomes clear, afterwards, that they were wrong then so be it. Sh!t happens and that's that. 
I do not believe that there  is a single referee  who goes on the field with the clear intention to screw one of the teams. I can remember my very first wrestling match that I officiated. It was in Rustenburg at the Jan Gericke Open Championships. My thoughts were not about which wrestler was going to win. My only thought was that I do not make a mistake and fcuk up, I didn't give a crap who won the match. My last match was at the SA Senior Championships and after years on the mat,  I knew most of the senior wrestlers who participated at this level and in that last match I did not think about who was going to walk of as the SA champion. My thought was exactly the same as that day in Rustenburg. I wanted to make sure that I do not fcuk up. 
When there was a crap decision involving Stuart Broad in a cricket match a few years ago, it was one moerse noise for a week or two and that was that. I cannot even remember who England played against in the particular match, who the other player was, etc, etc. The sun didn't stop shining and the earth did n't stop spinning.
I honestly think that we are taking the spirit of the sport away with too much technological intervention. 

Again, well said Plum.
The correct decision is what matters. How can the linesman or TV ref spotting something the ref has missed, be a bad thing? In other words, you are saying that cheating and foul play are fine, as long as you get away with it. Stupid logic if ever I've heard it. Also, when referee's are left to get away with poor decisions, the door is left wide open for match fixing. 
Look, there is no perfect system, and 3rd umpires also get it wrong, but that is mostly on very tight calls. When there is a blatant player error or foul play that the on field ref has simply missed, the 3rd umpire almost always gets it right. 
Another thing you tradition advocates are missing is when ref's get it wrong and matches are won or lost based on that decision, it costs players their contracts and coaching teams their jobs. There are huge repercussions for incorrect decisions.   
As for disrupting the game, well in rugby ref's tend to let the play run its course before stopping it for a review. Yes, there are stoppages, but as I said, there is no perfect system, so the closest we can get is what should be implemented. 
Lastly, as Moz has pointed out, the scrutiny of reviews may, and probably already has, improved the quality of match officiating. 

OK Bluebok, let's get rid of all this traditional BS. Let's start with this Haka BS of the ABs, Samoa, etc. Oh, and while we're at it let's also start to concentrate on the modern clinical way where every tackle needs to be dissected to see if it wasn't perhaps a millimetre too high. Also, let's also dissect every tackle after a kick-off or kick-in to see if the tackles player's feet was touching the ground before the moment of impact. If his feet was one millimetre off the ground it would mean that he was tackled in the air. That could be a match defining decision right there. As I have said, I'm all for using technology but as they say in Afr.ikaans, "Moenie die hol uit die hoender uitruk nie". IMO, while the game has grown a hell of a lot, because of TV and tech, it has also been fcuked up by TV and tech a lot.

 Thanks Bluebok
Indeed BB, careers are decided on decisions and outcomes. People will say it swings both ways but ultimately that means that some will get what's not due to them and others won't get what they should. 

The summary of arguments against more/better technology in reffing seem to be...
TraditionViabilityDisruption
From my side of the fence only the disruption issue is a valid one. That point then splits into two further issues. Injuries and game time. 
For at least half the team(the back line), stopping for calls is no different to pauses for scrums and such. For the forwards, my feeling is that staying warm/loose will solve the problem. If anything, a few more breaks in play per half should see intensity levels increase. Players will have more air chances. No idea what that would mean for injuries. Probably increase them slightly?
As for game time. Not sure a single fan put there would complain about a game going on for an extra 5 or 10 minutes if it meant that incorrect calls were brought down to near zero. And if fans prefer it then TV companies will have to provide. Rugby/Sport is far and away DSTVs biggest sole reason for customers paying the highest sub in SA.
@Cera 
I respect your view but I disagree with it entirely. Maybe since you are/were involved with officiating you have a deeper insight into the traditional role that it plays and the intrinsic human elements that it adds to the sport. I can't say youre wrong because I've only ever officiated debates and kids sports. But from a fans perspective I do disagree with you.
There are just too many games I've watched where at the end my teams has either won or lost but poor calls have made either instance worse. Saturday's Lions game is a good example. The ref handed the Lions that win and though they're my team and they won, I somehow feel cheated. 
That final call of the Lions/ABs series. How dubious was that? And it decided what was no doubt the best thing in rugby for the last few years. Those arguing against tech will say that yes it was a kak call but we should remember that technology and the fourth official were used.
Typing this has has made me decide to rewatch all three Lions tests again. I love my PVR.

 @Cera 
I'm in your camp on the Haka. Love the tradition but hate that special provision is made for it. 
I do enjoy the Bok Zulu guy. Did you know he's a dentist? I kind of look forward to him running out. In his mind he owns that stadium for 60 seconds. Brilliant.

@Plum. "There are just too many games I've watched where at the end my teams has either won or lost but poor calls have made either instance worse. " That is one of the issues right there. What happened to "my" team. How many games were actually genuinely decided due to refereeing mistakes as opposed to games not decided by refereeing error? You might feel that loads of the games were decided by the referee. I may feel that very few games are decided by refereeing errors. IMO, the vast majority of games are decided by players' actions. Be that moments of brilliance or moments of sheer stupidity. I can cite many games where it was the latter or in some cases a combination of both. An example of this is one of the favourite cases for SA supporters. The 2011 RWC game against Aus. BL fcuked up but despite all his mistakes we played an equal part in it. We kept on taking the wrong options. FDP kept taking quick taps from lockable penalties. John Smit kept on deciding to kick for the corners from penalties. And then there was Schalk Burger's fumble with an open try line. Despite all of that we managed to get our noses in front and then what happened in the dying moments? Dankie Rossouw played an opponent in the air and handed Aus the win. A comedy of errors by the ref and the players. To this day, everybody keeps crapping on BL and nobody talks about our own balls ups. If you look at it clinically, despite BL's atrocious performance, we also played a major role in that loss.

 Debate without insults or putdowns, love it. Well done boys.

 Cera, I agree with you, but if non intrusive tech can be utilized to help refs with calls difficult to police, like forward passes, offside and ahead of the kicker, why not. The tech is already there, it should just be fine tuned for rugby. 

 I'm thinking a telemetry system for forward passes and offside at kicks ...a ping in the reff's ear, like the net ping in tennis.

@Draad, that is exactly where I do not agree. There is no way that you will get the game to be so clinically perfect that you can have that kind of intervention. What is the idea? That some computer system judge a pass to be forward, or that another human being, i.e. a TMO decide that another look should be had at a pass? We want to allow the referee to use his own judgement as to whether the back line is 10m away from the line out, or whether it is time for the scrummie to use it or loose it, or whether an opposition player was inside or outside the 10m radius or whether or not there was sufficient advantage after an infringement, etc, etc, etc but we want some kind of other intervention to decide whether a pass was forward or not or if a player was 10cm in front of the kicker? I do not think that our rugby forefathers ever meant for the game to go this extent. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

 @Ceradyne, you are flogging a dead horse. 
It is about getting the right decisions, Get with the program, cmon!Who gives a crap what the forefathers thought "then" because they might have thought differently with today's technology. 

 @Cera
Name a sport that is worse off since the introduction of tech into officiating. 
I honestly can't think of any. 
Lol man there are many things in this world that the rugby Gods didn't foresee back then. Doesn't mean we have to ignore the present though.
It seems like we fall into the trap of saying that because something can't fix every problem it's entirely useless. Even if technology only managed to eradicate 50% of the issues...it's still 50% better than nothing.
@Draad
I like that idea. Technology being used to give the ref real time prompts. If that could work, why on earth would we not use it? And its not like it's cutting edge technology. That type of thing has been around for years. I'm all for it.
Ultimately, the players are already tracked. If the if the ball could be tracked too then without much effort one software could make a plethora of these prompts available to the ref. If this type of system were available then I can't see any reason why it should not be used in pro matches.
What we'll probably end up finding is that there are a great deal more infringements per game happening t han we are presently aware of.

What about shocking the players just before they go offside, or even freezing them to prevent the offside even happening

 Well, Plum, telemetry in F1 is used to much finer tolerances than will ever be needed for rugby. It could be set to give a bit leeway, just to prevent absolute howlers.

 Plum
 
Status: Bok regular 
Posts: 1644RE: Officiating ...Lions/Sharks
July 26, 2017, 18:08:56

 @Cera

Name a sport that is worse off since the introduction of tech into officiating. 
I honestly can't think of any. 
Lol man there are many things in this world that the rugby Gods didn't foresee back then. Doesn't mean we have to ignore the present though.
It seems like we fall into the trap of saying that because something can't fix every problem it's entirely useless. Even if technology only managed to eradicate 50% of the issues...it's still 50% better than nothing.
OK. Let me try something else. This is from one of my earlier posts on this thread:
Ceradyne
 
Status: Rugby Legend 
Posts: 6099RE: Officiating ...Lions/Sharks
July 25, 2017, 23:31:55

  Although I am quite happy that technology is used and I am also quite happy that  they are trying to make improvements in technology, I sometimes wonder if the technology is not a disadvantage to the officials. I think that it makes them lazy in a way. It could take away the need to always be super alert and always try to anticipate what the players are going to do next. 

Let me repeat that one more time:
Ceradyne
 
Status: Rugby Legend 
Posts: 6099RE: Officiating ...Lions/Sharks
July 25, 2017, 23:31:55

  Although I am quite happy that technology is used and I am also quite happy that  they are trying to make improvements in technology, I sometimes wonder if the technology is not a disadvantage to the officials. I think that it makes them lazy in a way. It could take away the need to always be super alert and always try to anticipate what the players are going to do next. 

Now, to get back to your post. It is true that there are very few sports disciplines, if any, that have not benefited from the introduction of technology. I am not even going to venture into F1 and other motorsport, because that is a totally different kettle of fish altogether. You could probably add stuff like the Americas Cup to that. However, other sports disciplines have been quite late to catch onto using technology as widely as rugby. Most of them use it in a predictive way. F@k, I am hoping that this is coming across in the way that I mean it to come across. Sometimes this bloody "Red Tale" still catches out the Boertjie in me.  Anyway, what I am trying to say  is that, let's say, cricket uses predictive technology to see what the ball would have done under certain conditions, i.e. Hawkeye and Snickometer, etc, or to see whether the ball has carried into the hands of a catcher, or if a bowler overstepped the line, whether the ball has carried to the border, whether the ball touched the ground before the border rope or whether it went past or onto the rope or whether the catcher's foot touched the rope or not. They also use Hotspot and the others to determine whether the ball touched the bat and/or pads of the batsman. You know the story, I 'm sure. Coincidentally, the Broad incident, that I referred to earlier, actually came after the umpires consulted using tech.
Football only recently started using it after much deliberation and only to judge whether the ball crossed the goal line. Tennis has been using it for quite some time, probably longer than rugby and only to determine whether the ball was out or not, and that is it. None of them uses it as extensively as rugby and certainly none of them, by the looks of it, intend to go much further in the use of tech.
TBH, I cannot say that tech improved any of the disciplines. It only improved some of the decisions of officials. What I do know is that there are way less interference by tech in football, tennis and cricket, than in rugby. I am not watching hours and hours of football but I have only seen one instance where Hawkeye was used in a game, since they introduced it in football.

 I'll trust a computer bot more than a Brycie or a Peyper.

 DbDraad
 
Status: Rugby Legend 
Posts: 5915RE: Officiating ...Lions/Sharks
July 26, 2017, 21:24:27

 I'll trust a computer bot more than a Brycie or a Peyper.