Quote Originally Posted by Andy_Faber View Post
I beg to differ on the rugby one, but from an 'at the game' POV. As a rugby dullard I find the forensicness of it (and the mic'd refs) enlightening on TV but it really breaks the atmosphere when watching from the terraces IMO. My much more interested other half says she is starting to get bored with the TV side of it too, the rush of excitement of a try is starting to lose its magic she says, and I can see that POV although its not actually evident from the racket she makes when Scotland score.

It works with cricket because its an OPTION (with the occasional sensible umpire initiated review). The best bit of sporting 'theatre' from any sport in the last few years was IMO the Stokes/Leach stand, and without Hawkeye (and its poor use in this case) itwould soon have become just another forgotten defeat
Agree about the delays in rugby...they can be infuriating, but ultimately if the correct decision is reached, and they usually seem to be, then I think that’s a good thing.
Interestingly, I believe that in the Southern Hemisphere, where disciplinary matters are concerned, when a yellow card/sin bin is given, play recommences immediately allowing the ultimate sanction to be decided during the ten minute sin binning. Certainly reduces hold ups and trial by crowd reaction which, imo, happened in last month’s Ireland v England match.

I feel one of the problems with VAR in this country is the apparent randomness of its referral...a perfect example being in the last minute of last week’s Liverpool v Arsenal match when I felt Liverpool were refused a stonewall penalty which could have huge ramifications for the destination of the title. The challenge on Salah should, at the very least, have been referred to VAR imo. The fact that it wasn’t is not a criticism of VAR but of those human beings who chose when to operate it.