Refereeing decisions

[Wilson]

The man with the whistle isn't going anywhere, but It will happen to some degree sooner or later. A lot of sports either already integrating or expanding their use of ML/AI into their judging processes from Football (Soccer), Tennis, Golf, Gymnastics etc. There is no reason the TMO need be just a human scrubbing video feeds when their role is to support the referee.

There are already systems like Trackswift (https://www.personar.ai/solutions/rugby) used in Rugby and you could see some of the post game footage analyst platforms like Framesports (https://framesports.ai/) and RugbySmarts (https://www.rugbysmarts.com/) style platforms etc. being able to operate realtime with live feeds.

That's all quick clipping and incident identification for the most part. You said "AI TMOs trained on models/images from games to make a call in a split second". It's the make a call part I took issue with and that should never happen, no matter what other sports chose to do.

 

[molman]

That's all quick clipping and incident identification for the most part. You said "AI TMOs trained on models/images from games to make a call in a split second". It's the make a call part I took issue with and that should never happen, no matter what other sports chose to do.

You honestly don’t see a future where these technologies are applied to say clear knock on, forward pass etc?

 

[Wilson]

You honestly don’t see a future where these technologies are applied to say clear knock on, forward pass etc?

Technologies yes, AI no. But even then it will still default to a refs call in the way that hawk eye does in the cricket for anything line ball.

 

[molman]

Technologies yes, AI no. But even then it will still default to a refs call in the way that hawk eye does in the cricket for anything line ball.

Not sure what your distinction is for technologies vs AI?

Agree, I don't see humans being taken out of it entirely, and this is the way most sport are approaching it to date - though not all, with Tennis removing their line judges for Hawkeye for example, but I do see some of the developing technologies like Fujitsu's JSS Human Motion Analytics style systems being applied to other sports. Biometric modeling and tracking, physics modelling for players and ball coupled with realtime film and image analyst and the increasing use of sensors in and around the sporting field, on players, in balls. It's hard to not see more of this coming into all sports with AI/ML models churning through all the data. Theres just too much money in pro sports these days.

Anyway, time will tell I guess.

 

[Wilson]

Not sure what your distinction is for technologies vs AI?

Agree, I don't see humans being taken out of it entirely, and this is the way most sport are approaching it to date - though not all, with Tennis removing their line judges for Hawkeye for example, but I do see some of the developing technologies like Fujitsu's JSS Human Motion Analytics style systems being applied to other sports. Biometric modeling and tracking, physics modelling for players and ball coupled with realtime film and image analyst and the increasing use of sensors in and around the sporting field, on players, in balls. It's hard to not see more of this coming into all sports. Theres just too much money in pro sports these days.

In a reductive sense, it's a directed and proven mathematical model/algorithm based on increasingly accurate and comprehensive sensor data vs a non-deterministic predictive black box (even if it's still based in the same data). None of that is to say there isn't a role for AI to play, only that it isn't as a decision maker.

But also to be clear on this, my position is that it should never be used to make calls, not that it will never be used to make calls.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Our sport doesn't even have a definition for something as fundamental as when a ball is out of a ruck. We are an eternity away from being able to use technology like this

 

[molman]

In a reductive sense, it's a directed and proven mathematical model/algorithm based on increasingly accurate and comprehensive sensor data vs a non-deterministic predictive black box (even if it's still based in the same data). None of that is to say there isn't a role for AI to play, only that it isn't as a decision maker.

But also to be clear on this, my position is that it should never be used to make calls, not that it will never be used to make calls.

Feels a bit like peoples position on human drivers with assistive technnologies vs autonomous vechicles. Ok with the former but not the later.

I'd be curious if you'd be ok with the silicon black-boxes if one day they're more consistently correct/efficient than the biological black-boxes?

 

[Wilson]

Feels a bit like peoples position on human drivers with assistive technnologies vs autonomous vechicles. Ok with the former but not the later.

I'd be curious if you'd be ok with the silicon black-boxes if one day they're more consistently correct/efficient than the biological black-boxes?

Not the issue. Human fallibility is acceptable in ways that mechanical/technological fallibility is not.

 

[molman]

Not the issue. Human fallibility is acceptable in ways that mechanical/technological fallibility is not.

As curious as I am to delve into this issue and your thoughts, I suspect we are veering somewhat away from refereeing decisions and more-so into the ethics of AI with explainablility (ie. your black-box concerns), accountability or even dehumanisation considerations.

 

[Wilson]

As curious as I am to delve into this issue and your thoughts, I suspect we are veering somewhat away from refereeing decisions and more-so into the ethics of AI with explainablility (ie. your black-box concerns), accountability or even dehumanisation considerations.

Somewhat, but my position here is more specific to sport then applications of AI in general - it's a fundamentally human contest, and I believe the adjudication of it should be too, flaws and all.

 

[Strewthcobber]

To get the thread back on a referee decision (although interesting points above).....Australia's first try today, is pretty clearly not a try for mine, there was separation between the participants in the maul.

The ball carrier wasn't bound the whole time and I don't really understand why refs/TMO don't spend 5 mins every maul try finding the inevitable offense.

This is without getting into the whole lifter in front of the catcher which all of a sudden seems to be a focus again

 

[Sword of Justice]

To get the thread back on a referee decision (although interesting points above).....Australia's first try today, is pretty clearly not a try for mine, there was separation between the participants in the maul.

The ball carrier wasn't bound the whole time and I don't really understand why refs/TMO don't spend 5 mins every maul try finding the inevitable offense.

This is without getting into the whole lifter in front of the catcher which all of a sudden seems to be a focus again

I can agree with that particular read whilst also stating that I find fault with almost every maul try. Joining from the hindmost player, pushing towards a try line, 5 second stops, keeping bound - actually refereeing this stuff would clean the game up massively. As it stands, the maul try is the least satisfying part of rugby for me and crafty teams that take advantage of lax law enforcement score far too easily.

 

[Alex Sharpe]

I can agree with that particular read whilst also stating that I find fault with almost every maul try. Joining from the hindmost player, pushing towards a try line, 5 second stops, keeping bound - actually refereeing this stuff would clean the game up massively. As it stands, the maul try is the least satisfying part of rugby for me and crafty teams that take advantage of lax law enforcement score far too easily.

I would be pretty confident that you could find fault with almost every try scored. A player not fully supporting their body weight at the breakdown, a slightly incorrect entry to a ruck/maul, a ball carrier releasing the ball slightly later than they should etc....

Rugby fans accept that one of rugby's strongest attributed (its depth and complexity) comes with a cost of a degree of imperfection in officiating.

The use of technology to achieve a 100% solution in officiating is simply not compatible with out game.

 

[Sword of Justice]

I would be pretty confident that you could find fault with almost every try scored. A player not fully supporting their body weight at the breakdown, a slightly incorrect entry to a ruck/maul, a ball carrier releasing the ball slightly later than they should etc....

Rugby fans accept that one of rugby's strongest attributed (its depth and complexity) comes with a cost of a degree of imperfection in officiating.

The use of technology to achieve a 100% solution in officiating is simply not compatible with out game.

I’m with you that we don’t want to be too officious and pedantic in the refereeing and that there’s always something to pin in rucks. The difference is that the mauls often devolve into what simply cannot be stopped by defending teams which is antithetical to the spirit of Rugby, where everything is a contest. If a player is off feet at a breakdown but not actually in the way of the ball being cleared we still have a contest. Not so in the case of many mauls.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I'm happy enough for refs to ignore offenses that aren't material, joining the maul in front of the ball as an example, probably doesn't matter most of the time.

From a equity perspective, I think they should be red hot on any obstruction, both preventing the opposition from sacking a maul as it forms, and also if the attacking team can't get the binds right and create a truck and trailer situation.

The Australians failed at the second on Saturday, with the ball at the back, and separation from the NFL blockers at the front, and that sort of offense should be penalized.

 

[LeCheese]

I'm happy enough for refs to ignore offenses that aren't material, joining the maul in front of the ball as an example, probably doesn't matter most of the time.

From a equity perspective, I think they should be red hot on any obstruction, both preventing the opposition from sacking a maul as it forms, and also if the attacking team can't get the binds right and create a truck and trailer situation.

The Australians failed at the second on Saturday, with the ball at the back, and separation from the NFL blockers at the front, and that sort of offense should be penalized.

Still bound in that image, no?

 

[JRugby2]

Still bound in that image, no?

I don't think so - "bound" is shoulders on.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Still bound in that image, no?

The ball is with the back "pod" in that image. Ikitau is about to bind on.

You are right that the ball carrier is still bound to Jorgensen. The issue is nobody from the back "pod" is bound to the 4 Australians up front who are now obstructing Fiji from getting to the maul

Binding Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

 

[LeCheese]

The ball is with the back "pod" in that image. Ikitau is about to bind on.

You are right that the ball carrier is still bound to Jorgensen. The issue is nobody from the back "pod" is bound to the 4 Australians up front who are now obstructing Fiji from getting to the maul

Cheers - had been looking for the official definition of 'being bound' but couldn't locate it

 

[Strewthcobber]

Rassie up to some new tricks in SA v Italy.

a) Deliberately kicked off short and recovered within 10m to force a scrum
Reddit video

b) setup a lifted "lineouts" midfield maul in open play.
Reddit video

For mine, both are illegal. a) under the deliberate infringement law, and b) under the pre-latching law introduced a couple of season ago.

I kind of can't believe the ref let them get away with it, particularly the first one