BA Appreciation Thread

[Suitman]

x 2.

I think it's a tough job. That doesn't excuse some decisions. But people should remember that not only is the on field ref looking from one angle.....they are at ground level and often with a bunch of big merkins getting in the road at crucial time.

There'll always be mistakes, and worse.

An most people forget how bad things were without video technology and the Bunker.
It's the very reason we have brought in these innovations.

 

[Twizzle]

The Bunker has hardly made any difference and its far too restricted on what it can rule on.

Refs make howlers and its obvious to everyone watching the replay, yet they cant mention it.

What is the point if its use is so limited ?

 

[Noise]

The Bunker has hardly made any difference and its far too restricted on what it can rule on.

Refs make howlers and its obvious to everyone watching the replay, yet they cant mention it.

What is the point if its use is so limited ?

what would you extend the bunker's rulings to?

 

[strider]

The bunker would be more entertaining if there were 5 guys sitting at a desk and they each held up a try/no try card on the count of 3

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

The bunker would be more entertaining if there were 5 guys sitting at a desk and they each held up a try/no try card on the count of 3

Much better than the 'we have a decision and going to the board.'

Or give everyone in the crowd a board. Would boost attendance.

 

[Eelementary]

You have just highlighted the calls against parra which of course you are going to remember, and thats fair enough, just like all fans will remember the calls that went against their team. You conveniently forgot about jennings huge forward pass to Semi (worse than the souths one) and the fact we actually won the penalty count 10-5 (i think) in that game.

Refs get stuff wrong for both teams. There is no conspiracy. League fans complain about refs more than any other sport. It's no wonder there are so many issues with ref abuse at junior league when the first thing anyone complains about is the refs in the nrl. That attitude filters down.

True.

All I'm saying is some big calls went against us (and they probably should've gone our way), and it makes me wonder if our cheating has subconsciously affected referees' minds.

And I'd like for the coach to keep them honest by asking questions.

But no excuses - we deserved to lose both games.

 

[Suitman]

The Bunker has hardly made any difference and its far too restricted on what it can rule on.

The bunker rules on "the rules".
It's the interpretation of the rules that is the problem, and that also comes about from the intense scrutiny from the media. Phil Gould questions f**king everything.
The NRL though, is ultimately responsible that the rules are being taken out of context, and being influenced by sections of the media.
The referees are doing their best to be consistent, considering the constant media scrutiny they are under, because, not even the print and broadcast media can agree on decisions.
Brandy, Ikin, Kent, Warren, Gould, Tallis, Girdler, Sterling, Johns, the other Johns, Ginane, Hadley, Moore, Gasnier, Finch, Caine etc...............

They all have different views of every single decision, yet they all expect the refereeing to be a constant? f**king lol.
It ain't ever going to happen. So, instead of the media focus on the controversies, how about they just leave it alone and focus on selling and promoting the game that provides them with an income?
Nahh. Ain't gunna happen.
Lets just focus on all the negatives, eh media? And then criticise the shit our of the game and the hierarchy when crowds don't increase. Yep, that'll work.

 

[Gary Gutful]

The more we search for perfection, the more that we discover imperfection.

Get rid of all of it and go back to how it was. Ch 9 and Fox won't have time to focus things to the nth degree if the ref has already blown the whistle and the play continues.

Wishful thinking perhaps, but I am almost certain it would be much better in the long run.

 

[hineyrulz]

The more we search for perfection, the more that we discover imperfection.

Get rid of all of it and go back to how it was. Ch 9 and Fox won't have time to focus things to the nth degree if the ref has already blown the whistle and the play continues.

Wishful thinking perhaps, but I am almost certain it would be much better in the long run.

Ahhhhhh the good old dayz.

 

[Kornstar]

Ahhhhhh the good old dayz.

Yeah the good old days when they used to actively try to break necks and break jaws :sarcasm:

 

[hineyrulz]

Yeah the good old days when they used to actively try to break necks and break jaws :sarcasm:

Now they just try and break other things......

 

[Twizzle]

The bunker rules on "the rules".
It's the interpretation of the rules that is the problem, and that also comes about from the intense scrutiny from the media. Phil Gould questions f**king everything.
The NRL though, is ultimately responsible that the rules are being taken out of context, and being influenced by sections of the media.
The referees are doing their best to be consistent, considering the constant media scrutiny they are under, because, not even the print and broadcast media can agree on decisions.
Brandy, Ikin, Kent, Warren, Gould, Tallis, Girdler, Sterling, Johns, the other Johns, Ginane, Hadley, Moore, Gasnier, Finch, Caine etc...............

They all have different views of every single decision, yet they all expect the refereeing to be a constant? f**king lol.
It ain't ever going to happen. So, instead of the media focus on the controversies, how about they just leave it alone and focus on selling and promoting the game that provides them with an income?
Nahh. Ain't gunna happen.
Lets just focus on all the negatives, eh media? And then criticise the shit our of the game and the hierarchy when crowds don't increase. Yep, that'll work.

That's not the issue to which I am referring. For example the Cowpats Storm game when JT was attempting a FG in the final seconds Cam Smith was 3 metres offside and it was "missed". That was not open to interpretation, it was a blatant miss.

The bunker should have told the ref in my opinion.

 

[Kornstar]

Now they just try and break other things......

That's just the Storm, the refs also let them.

 

[ash411]

And why can't they use overlays (like with the sponsor signage on the field, to draw a line to check offsides and even forward passes.

They say they can't rule on forward passes now because the camera angles make it difficult to judge it correctly, so, draw a line from the toe of the passer/kicker to the sideline, then it becomes blatantly obvious.

 

[Dibs]

And why can't they use overlays (like with the sponsor signage on the field, to draw a line to check offsides and even forward passes.

They say they can't rule on forward passes now because the camera angles make it difficult to judge it correctly, so, draw a line from the toe of the passer/kicker to the sideline, then it becomes blatantly obvious.

How do those lines on the field allow for forward momentum?

 

[forward pass]

That's not the issue to which I am referring. For example the Cowpats Storm game when JT was attempting a FG in the final seconds Cam Smith was 3 metres offside and it was "missed". That was not open to interpretation, it was a blatant miss.

The bunker should have told the ref in my opinion.

But it was Cam Smith Twiz. I am pretty sure he has a direct line to the bunker anyway.

 

[ash411]

How do those lines on the field allow for forward momentum?

You could determine that by seeing that the ball is passed behind the line, then you would see it moving forward.

Isn't the idea that a forward pass cannot break the plane of the passer at the time the ball leaves the passers hands? You also need to look at the passers hands, to see if they have passed in a backward motion, and the ball has traveled forward (via wind or whatever).

It's kind of a grey area, cause forward passes are all about intent, rather than the actual positioning.

Maybe it's only a good idea for offside calls, that is much more cut and dried.

 

[Dibs]

You could determine that by seeing that the ball is passed behind the line, then you would see it moving forward.

Isn't the idea that a forward pass cannot break the plane of the passer at the time the ball leaves the passers hands? You also need to look at the passers hands, to see if they have passed in a backward motion, and the ball has traveled forward (via wind or whatever).

It's kind of a grey area, cause forward passes are all about intent, rather than the actual positioning.

Maybe it's only a good idea for offside calls, that is much more cut and dried.

I certainly agree it should be used for offside calls. It could also work for stationary passes. What annoys me about offside is that you use to have to be behind the player but now it's the ball. I suppose it's not a major thing but I much prefer it the old way

 

[TheRam]

My biggest problem with refs is the onside/offside policing. I didn't like Bill Harrigan's arrogant theatrics a lot of the time, but one thing that stood him above the other refs and made many of his games a better fluid spectacle was that he would hold the teams at 12 and up to 15m apart so as that teams like the Storm today, that continually stand offside, don't get that unfair advantage.

I wish these other merkin refs would take a leaf out of his book and follow suit.

It would address so many issues it isn't funny and how easy would it be to do.

Just go back an extra 2 metres, how hard is it?

 

[Bigfella]

We still had a shit record against Melbourne under Harrigan