Refereeing and video ref.

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
MWSE said:
Most of the penalties against us were definitely deserved IMHO. Mostly resulting from from not moving away quickly enough from the play of the ball or not getting back to marker. 2V obviously saw this and put a rocket up them about it at half time and it improved from there on out.

I agree, but the problem is if we were penalised so much, why weren't the Broncos when they were on us longer? Thaiday was the worst of them.
 
Jono said:
MWSE said:
Most of the penalties against us were definitely deserved IMHO. Mostly resulting from from not moving away quickly enough from the play of the ball or not getting back to marker. 2V obviously saw this and put a rocket up them about it at half time and it improved from there on out.

I agree, but the problem is if we were penalised so much, why weren't the Broncos when they were on us longer? Thaiday was the worst of them.

The broncos had home ground advantage which means Manly were always going to get penalized more because they were the visiting team. The refs basically put there whistles away in the second half because the penalty count was 8/3 to the broncs. This gave manly the opportunity to take more control of the game.
 
I hadn't seen this thread until tonight. I was going to kick off a similar thread. Agree with everything you said Swoop.
Even tonight - a couple of tries given without going upstairs. Great to see.
 
The comments in this thread are spot on. Harrigan castrated the referees with each change he made. Everyone ultimately wanted to not make a decision - resulting in ludicrous outcomes.

No wonder there was a mutiny of the refs last year. Well done to Anderson for fixing the rot.
 
And how the worm turns.

We were all so hopeful at the start of the season.

I was thinking that maybe the ex-player in the vid ref box hasn't worked.

Gus kept calling for it but there's 2 initial problems.

1)They basically become 'refs' and so don't offer the 'this is how the game should be played' slant, and

2) Ex-players still carry old grudges. If hollywood can come out and say he went into games with preconceived ideas then there's no way the ex-players aren't biased. B/S like 'I just call it how I see it' is untenable I reckon. Yes Luke Patten I include you in this - you should never have done the Manly game no matter what.

Anyway, Happy Canada day for the first, and it's damn hot in whistler with lots of bears.
 
Yep, it's certainly turned. The first 5 or 6 weeks was good but now it's worse than ever. The refs have no balls in decision making. What looked so promising at the start of the season has turned into a farce.
 
but the main reason the refs can get away with their biases is because they are completely unanswerable to anyone. If they had to explain and justify some of their very questionable calls and suffer the consequences of making a dud call they may think twice about doing it again. At the moment the most they suffer is a week off on full pay - tough not!
 
My beef at the moment is that the NRL and Anderson need to work out what they want.
If they want to get most decisions right by using the video ref at every instance, then the game will be a stop start rabble like NFL.

There's no consistency as sometimes the video ref gets himself involved when he's not even asked ( eg Horo's tackle on JWH which was potentially a match defining decision ) but won't come in on another issue in the same game which is potentially just as important.

There's always contentious calls in every match but they don't get involved in every one, so why is one so more important than another?

So who's in charge of the match?
The refs can overrule the touchies, but rarely do, but the video ref can overrule him even when he's made a decision on the field.

However, they don't overrule the ref if he awards a try and the replay shows something untoward happened in the lead up - it's tough luck.
They'll look at something ten times that most of us can see in the first replay and others they rule after only one look ( like did Buhrer lose the ball backwards or not?, we know he lost it but...)

The video refs are meant to help get more things right, but most of us would agree that they don't.

Rant over for now.
 
Which is what ricky stuart bangs on about, that he is happy to cop the penalties his team incur as they are warranted but that other teams do the same stuff and don't get penalized for it. Which makes it bias reffing. You can argue every which way but it keeps coming back to that same thing, teams get reffed differently
 
MissKate said:
Which is what ricky stuart bangs on about, that he is happy to cop the penalties his team incur as they are warranted but that other teams do the same stuff and don't get penalized for it. Which makes it bias reffing. You can argue every which way but it keeps coming back to that same thing, teams get reffed differently

It's not just different teams getting reffed differently.
I think it was Souths v Canberra, they pinged Souths for a flat/forward pass from dummy half - which is about every second one anyway. But in the lead up to the Burgess try Sutton threw a short ball that went further forward than it did sideways ( even Rabs called it ) that was missed. Then a pass from Inglis to Merritt that ultimatey led to their next try was forward too and missed.

Just used that game as an example but take your pick.
 
Old thread, new post (apologies).

I couldn't believe penriff's first try by whare was allowed.

You could see his fingers bend and slide across the sideline.

Then the 'riff coach, Cleary, to say with a straight face that it was a fair try.

I just don't get what images the vid refs are watching.

Are they getting the same images as well as in high def?

I shall await anderson's in depth, inciteful and reassuring response.
 
They are watching on a smaller HD TV and omly got the hd tvs last year I think. Which is just dumb.
 
THE WHARE DECISION WAS UN-F-IN-BELIEVABLE.....Can't understand how they get it sooo wrong....the video refs should be getting the same replays we see at home.
 
HOWLERS. This is what technology was supposed to stop. But in doesn't - not in RL nor cricket. Nor has having two on-field referees.
You can't get perfection in players, nor officials.
And isn't this part of the attraction of sport - its unpredictability?
Technology has turned the first two cricket Tests into a farce, and eroded much of the tradition that made this sport so endearing.
Has anybody wondered why the US hasn't introduced technology into baseball? Simply, its because technology is fallable, as are the people who operate/rule on it.
It has detracted from both RL and cricket imo.
 
Anderson conceded that the head video referee, the former grand final fullback Luke Phillips, was ''gobsmacked'' he had made the decision when he viewed later replays that clearly showed the centre's hand brushing the sideline.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/refs-boss-laments-whare-try-howler-call-20130722-2qew4.html#ixzz2ZzBXA7ZX



If he was gobsmacked and just can't believe that he made the decision, it'd be nice on what basis he made it in the first place.

If it was substandard technology you'd think Anderson would have said so.

Maybe Luke just had some $$$$ on the panthers.
 
Hi pumpkins,

Someone may be able to explain the logic to me on this one:

I've heard that the video ref's can now only overturn the on field ref's call if there is good evidence to show that the initial decision was incorrect.

BUT

The fact that a ref sends a decision upstairs means they are not sure what happened so why should the video ref have to place any weight on what the ref's thought?

The video ref usually gets the benefit of multiple camera angles at multiple replays.

They seem to focus on the "overturning the ref's decision" but the ref's decision is basically "I don't know what happened so you look at it for me please Mr Video ref."


It just seems fundamentally flawed and that the nrl got the wording out of the cricket drs system.

2 examples - The matai no try. Commentators said that the vid ref cant see enough evidence to overturn the decision (b/s).

rorters v wests: rorters get given a try which on replay (and video ref) clearly shows there is a hand underneath. I mean even clearer than the matai try.... but the decision stands as a try. From there wests poop themselves and get flogged. A real turning point.


I just don't understand why now the video refs have to have conclusive proof in order to overturn a ref's best guess.

It makes no sense.

I'm sam kekovich
 
  • 👍
Reactions: Rex
Fair enough then.

What about the rest of you guys?

You'd be at work now so no excuse for not being on here!
 
I love you GE but if i agree withyou I'd be worried about my mind.
Where is my mind?

WHEEEERRREE Is my MIIIND? WHEEEERRRREE.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom