Harrigan concedes Warriors error

[Philip_Smith007]

If this isnt a clear reason we need some kind of captains call system in place to challange a refs decision.
But would Mannering have questioned it?

Basically good on you for getting it wrong with confidence!

http://www.nrl.com/harrigan-concedes-warriors-error/tabid/10874/newsid/61837/default.aspx

Harrigan said Shorthall would still be asked to explain how he came to his decision.

"I'll be saying to the referee, 'Mate, what were your thoughts?'," Harrigan added.

"And obviously he's going to say to me, 'I was a hundred per cent certain Bill'.

"And I'm going to say, 'Good, you've made the decision, it was wrong, we've got to live it'.

"But I applaud him for being in the right spot and making the decision.

"When you make decisions inevitably you're going to come up with a wrong one.

"We all do that."

Harrigan said senior referee Tony Archer was not in a position to have questioned Shorthall's call and it remained uncertain whether Mateo had grounded the ball before the dead ball line.

But he backed Shorthall to continue in the top grade next week.

"With the replay there (on the scoreboard) I would say he would have known that was an iffy one," Harrigan said.

"He may have had a look at the replay himself.

"The good thing was he kept himself together.

"You'd hate to see that he then fell apart and that affected the rest of his game.

" ... That tells me that he's a competent first grade referee."

 

[Dr Crane]

he got it wrong, but f**k me if he didn't back himself doing it!

 

[Whos Ya Daddy]

Zero accountability under Harrigan as expected.

Let's accept mediocrity.

Who gives a f**k about a wrong call here or there as long as the refs back themselves?

Typical Harrigan..... Wanker.

 

[NZ Warrior]

If you were 100% certain of the wrong decision, I'd say you were dillusional. Therefore, unfit to do your job.

It's funny how when the ref was in a similar position for Mannering's try (which was more clear-cut) the vid ref took 4-5 replays to make a decision.

Harrigan has just proven to me that little will change, regarding referee's accountability.

 

[ozbash]

or the bias shown to kiwi based teams ??

 

[Rich102]

My only comment is the refereeing was much better than the week before.

 

[hitman82]

...apart from that 1 massive travesty, yes!
Pretty angry about the decision to call the grounding aye.

 

[ozbash]

there should be a review facility, like in the one day cricket.

 

[Rich102]

there should be a review facility, like in the one day cricket.

It has to be at the time or it won't work.
I don't think Mannering realised at the time and the referee was very well positioned.

 

[hitman82]

Mannering probably wouldn't say anything anyway. Hardly ever see the Price-like discussions with the referees. Mannering tends to just look frustrated and too young to communicate with the officials in a worthwhile manner.

Might just be my view though.

 

[Micistm]

If this isnt a clear reason we need some kind of captains call system in place to challange a refs decision.
But would Mannering have questioned it?

Basically good on you for getting it wrong with confidence!

http://www.nrl.com/harrigan-concedes-warriors-error/tabid/10874/newsid/61837/default.aspx

Harrigan said Shorthall would still be asked to explain how he came to his decision.

"I'll be saying to the referee, 'Mate, what were your thoughts?'," Harrigan added.

"And obviously he's going to say to me, 'I was a hundred per cent certain Bill'.

"And I'm going to say, 'Good, you've made the decision, it was wrong, we've got to live it'.

"But I applaud him for being in the right spot and making the decision.

"When you make decisions inevitably you're going to come up with a wrong one.

"We all do that."

Harrigan said senior referee Tony Archer was not in a position to have questioned Shorthall's call and it remained uncertain whether Mateo had grounded the ball before the dead ball line.

But he backed Shorthall to continue in the top grade next week.

"With the replay there (on the scoreboard) I would say he would have known that was an iffy one," Harrigan said.

"He may have had a look at the replay himself.

"The good thing was he kept himself together.

"You'd hate to see that he then fell apart and that affected the rest of his game.

" ... That tells me that he's a competent first grade referee."

...That tells me he ****ing isn't.:lol:
Good god. I wasn't overly bothered by it before, just a dumb decision that hadn't gone our way and a ref **** up. But that reasoning is just arrogant and going to cost a side dearly at some stage
Same old, same old. Still never ceases to amaze me when Warriors touch down it's scrutinised ad nauseum, opposition and it's a given the whistle will blow. Although in that case it wasn't even scrutinised!
I wouldn't say it's baised though really, although it looks that way sometimes. Just poor incompetant reffing.

 

[JAG]

I know I'm gonna be in a minority of 1 here, but I agree where Harrigan is coming from on this.

The referee obviously made a huge f**k up and made the wrong call but if he was convinced the ball was grounded, why should he have gone upstairs? As far as I'm concerned, the video ref is there for cases where the plonkers in the pink have doubts about a decision. I've sat at Mt Smart many a time and got massively pissed off by referees sending decisions to the video ref when they were standing inches away from the action and must have known what the decision was going to be. Same reason why I think "Ref's Call" is a crock of sh*t as well, if he knows what decision he's gonna make, why send it upstairs?

They will get some wrong but I'd prefer that to them sending every decision upstairs because they don't have the balls to make a call on their own.

Right, that's my 10c. Fire away....

 

[Rich102]

I agree Jag, but I can see a benefit to a review system such as they are using at the ICC world cup. I don't think the Warriors realised what had happened till they saw it on the screen.

 

[NZ Warrior]

Mannering probably wouldn't say anything anyway. Hardly ever see the Price-like discussions with the referees. Mannering tends to just look frustrated and too young to communicate with the officials in a worthwhile manner.

Might just be my view though.

It's for this reason, that I think Luck should be our captain.

He's the only one that I see shouting out to the rest of the team. Mannering was never captain-material in my eyes.

 

[JAG]

I agree Jag, but I can see a benefit to a review system such as they are using at the ICC world cup. I don't think the Warriors realised what had happened till they saw it on the screen.

Definitely. I think in situations like that, some sort of review would be a good idea.

 

[Rich102]

It's for this reason, that I think Luck should be our captain.

He's the only one that I see shouting out to the rest of the team. Mannering was never captain-material in my eyes.

What about Maloney?

 

[JAG]

What about Maloney?

Ha Ha. could just see Archer running away screaming "Alright, alright, stop talking at me, it's a penalty. Now will you please SHUT THE F**K UP......." :lol:

 

[NZ Warrior]

Ha Ha. could just see Archer running away screaming "Alright, alright, stop talking at me, it's a penalty. Now will you please SHUT THE F**K UP......." :lol:

Haha, yeah. I think electing Maloney as captain, would be akin to electing McKinnon. The refs would just wave him away.

But yeah, you're right, Richy. Maloney is another one who's always barking out to the players. I don't see Seymour doing it as much.

 

[Meth]

It's for this reason, that I think Luck should be our captain.

He's the only one that I see shouting out to the rest of the team. Mannering was never captain-material in my eyes.

Inclined to agree. Luck is far better with the referees (and media) than Mannering

 

[hitman82]

Inclined to agree. Luck is far better with the referees (and media) than Mannering

Hmm yeah I see Luck as a pretty good speaker, but do we even want him in the team? I currently don't.

Mannering and Luck shouldn't be in the second row together in my opinion.

But Mannering is too good a player not to select at all.

So maybe if Moon doesn't find form, Mannering should be our other centre?

We could then bring in a more creative second rower like Lousi or Ta'ai.

1.Hohaia
2.Fish/Locke.../Inu when Manu comes back
3.Mannering
4.Ropati
5.Inu/Vatuvei when fit
6.Maloney
7.Seymour
8.Rapira
9.Berrimaiamara
10.Packer
11.Ta'ai
12.Mateo
13.Luck (c)

15.Brown/Lousi

*shrugs*

But yeah the problem remains for me, that I don't really want Luck playing at all. I'd like to have a captain that is neither Luck, as I don't want him in the side, or Mannering, as I don't think he is good at that role.

But I have no idea who else in our team could be a good leader.

Is that what we are lacking now that Tate is gone and Price isn't even behind the scenes?