If you watch Rugby at all you'd understand why people thought that. They use it perfectly and you can hear the communication between the officials. I trust Rugby officiating completely now, and so do the players.
I do, and to be honest i'm not sure it works quite as perfectly in rugby as people claim when talking about football. I've watched loads of games where players/fans/commentators have all been quite confused by a decision. There was a pretty high profile example just this weekend of most people thinking it hadn't been used well in rugby union. I think people maybe just accept things in rugby slightly differently to how they do in football too, as well as a lot of football's laws being a bit more down to intepretation. Being able to hear the officials would make the decision making more transparent, but it wouldn't necessarily make it better. As an example, hearing a referee say 'I don't think Rodri has handballed that' wouldn't tell us anything we didn't already know about that decision last season, we can gather that from the decision itself, we'd still have a crap decision, we'd just hear the excuse in real time instead of later.
the transparency makes it better, and more honest, because the official is aware of potentially millions listening to them analyse it. As it is now, there is no accountability. Hearing them discuss it, carrys an extra responsibility akin to how people would speak to each other in person differently to how they would speak to each other online. Any layers of opacity should be removed if it is to stand any chance.
Yep, agree with every word.
Don't have a problem with our goal not standing - it sucks, but it was offside - but the rules and technology/lack of to administer them should be the same for all games within the same competition/round.
I find it absolutely baffling, given how rugby (TMO) and cricket (hawkeye, snickometer etc) have used similar technology for years, that football could possibly get VAR so badly wrong for so long, and not even fix it. All they have to do is speak to those governing bodies and ask someone to advise/consult on it, but apparently that is too much to ask. May as well have our board running it....
that wont work as you will get differing opinions depending on the team involved. They should get one look at it at real or even half speed, if it isn't obvious from that, the attacker is deemed to be level and therefore onside.
It is almost as if they don't want it to work properly and fairly...
I don't buy into conspiracies about them wanting to protect certain teams/having an agenda against others. But I do think there is certainly an aspect of them bowing to pressure from certain quarters more than others, and that enough is not being applied to them over issues like this to overcome it.
I think a lot of people who think it works perfectly in rugby are casual observers who don't really care about the outcome of games, and don't necessarily understand the rules very well, so they just watch a game and believe that the process has been great because they're not particularly invested in it. They then watch football where they're fiercely partisan and have a much better understanding of the game, and find the whole thing infuriating. Fans/players/coaches/commentators of rugby don't think it's perfect by any means, there's plenty of articles about it, involving both codes:
www.foxsports.com.au
au.sports.yahoo.com
www.foxsports.com.au
www.telegraph.co.uk
its 'good for the brand' if those teams do well
Seems like a pride/arrogance thing to me. They'd rather stumble on it 'accidentally' after years of misuse and pretend they cracked it all by themselves. Baffling