Hollywood admits what we've been saying all along

[ek999]

So you will just always hand the ball over to the defending team if you don't know what happened

 

[Raider_69]

So you will just always hand the ball over to the defending team if you don't know what happened

of course
You dont convict anyone without proof of them having done the crime.
If the referee's dont see an infringement committed then they have no evidence to penalise it.

You referee what you see. If you see the ball get dropped and dont see any evidence that it got help coming out, then you should absolutely rule a knock on and change of possession, and it shouldnt matter if Joe Bloggs was involved in the tackle and has clearly raked at the ball all game. You dont call it, unless you see it

 

[ek999]

So then when we see strips constantly going unpenalised people won't complain? The refs don't really get that many wrong at the moment so why change

 

[Raider_69]

they get plenty of them wrong, particularly the strip/loose carry. Every game we see loose carries ruled as strips. Doesnt seem to go the other way, which again leads to this preconceived idea stuff. I guess they dont do home work on forwards who carry the ball loosely... Call what they see, at least then when they get it wrong it's an honest mistake based on what they saw, not a mistake made on preconceived ideas and zero evidence.


But yes, if they consistently get the calls wrong, people will complain and it will up to the NRL to remove those who are not up to the task of getting themselves into correct position to see what is happening. There is 2 touch judges, and 2 on field referee's including a ruck ref. It's not that hard.

The added bonus is if you stop rewarding loose carries with penalties because your home work tells you some "serial offender" is around the tackle, maybe it will put the onus back on the players to secure possession properly, so the cheeky quick slap at the ball wont dislodge it and you'll have an easier time differentiating between strips and loose balls

 

[undertaker]

The question is: would referees decisions be more accurate if we went back to no video ref and in-goal touch judges? Or, should we have a challenge system like the NFL?

 

[Bumble]

Sterling made perfect sense

The word "usually" and the 9.5 times out of 10 isn't good enough

The referee is out there to referee what he SEES, not what he guesses or perceives to have happened

so you'd rather them not call it and be right 5% of the time? I really didn't understand this point by Sterlo.

 

[LineBall]

Seems like most of the issue is with strips. Make it legal to strip the ball with two in the tackle - would simplify things more IMO.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

so you'd rather them not call it and be right 5% of the time? I really didn't understand this point by Sterlo.

If they don't see it, don't call it. They are there to adjudicate on what they see happen, not what they think might have happened. There should be absolutely no guesswork involved

 

[Danish]

so you'd rather them not call it and be right 5% of the time? I really didn't understand this point by Sterlo.

the 95% figure was pulled out of Harrigan's arse. When Sterlo called him on it he then decided to label all his guessed strip calls as being right 100% of the time. Its not an actual studied figure backed up by stats. It was just a nice high sounding number that hollywood thought would get his point across, but failed.


If the ref doesn't see a penalty, he should not award a penalty. If this leads to players being able to get away with cheeky strips then so be it. Perhaps that will lead to a bit more onus put on the ball carrier to actually HOLD THE BALL.

 

[ek999]

If they changed it to that I would bet everything I own that people would then complain that strips aren't being penalised when they should be

 

[Raider_69]

so basically you're ok with referee's being sub par and not up to the task
and you're ok with them making it up as they go to cover for this fact?

Strange position to take i must admit

 

[thorson1987]

The first thing I was taught in my referees course was not to assume anything.

 

[bottle]

Partial solution, change the rule for when the tackle is completed.

If the tackle is deemed completed and the ball pops free, then two possible outcomes -
a) The ref sees or is tipped it was a strip, so penalty
b) The ref is unsure, attacking player picks up the ball and plays it.

The ruck is no longer a contest anyway so the whole reason for the integrity of the play the ball has changed.
Such a change makes interference with the ball carrier a lower percentage option for the defending team than it is currently because they get no opportunity to get possession. The only advantage is slowing down the play a touch, with a penalty against still a possible outcome.
For those countering with the argument that it removes the onus of ball security from the ball carrier, personally I don't care.

Not much that can be done where the case is that the tackle is still in progress. However unless the ref is sure, or is tipped, that it was a strip, it shouldn't be a penalty on suspicion.

 

[Danish]

If they changed it to that I would bet everything I own that people would then complain that strips aren't being penalised when they should be

And that would be tough shit for those complaining.

Providing the referee's simply rule on what they see, the referee's boss has an inbuilt response whenever a decision is questioned by the media i.e. "That's how the on field ref saw it" or "The on field ref did not see it that way".

If throughout the season the on field ref is continuously seeing things that are at odds with what they find to be the correct decision during their video reviews then they can take internal action to either train up that referee some more, or drop him and promote someone else. How the referees rule the game should never be controlled by public opinion. It should be controlled solely on whether or not the refs are applying the rules as laid out in the rule book. If they are doing that, but the public doesn't like it, thats their problem to deal with.

The NRL has made major rule changes pretty much every year for the past 6-7 seasons based on the whims of the public/media. That is embarrassing.

 

[Hanscholo]

- Fixing and Changing rules

We need a fresh perspective. We need the total separation of rules and enforcement. Those two things should never be run by the same person. Rules should take a very long time to change, should go thru many tests, and come from committee of all stakeholders. Not from the referees boss, its a massive conflict of interest where self preservation becomes the guiding principle to rule development. As we saw with Bill harrigan, protecting his job meant changing rules haphazardly, same with finch and the same thing will happen to anderson.

- The rule book

The current format is terrible. Half of the rules we enforce aren't even in there. Rather than an individual taking all of the pressure about rules, the system itself should be the fall back. The actual rulebook should be the 'be all and end all' of rule discussions until such time as its changed as per the process above. It means referees are able to be trained in a concrete set of laws and principles, its means no individual is responsible for interpretation. It means when someone has a question they can be pointed to the document.

Fix penalties

The disadvantage from conceding a penalty is far too great in the game.

The lack of consistency brought on by referees feeling as though despite an infraction taking place a side will be unfairly treated by conceding a penalty. Its unspoken but rife within the game, its the cause of most of the inconsistency. In particular 10m and ruck penalties.

For everything other than professional fouls performed deliberately to prevent the opposition from attacking all penalties should be a tap restart of the tackle count. No sideline kicking.

- The new NRL structures

These changes must take place for the sport to grow, each of those areas has reached a point where they will either stagnate and fester or they will move ahead. Someone at the NRL needs to understand these points and take them on.

 

[Crazy Steve]

Harrigan was/is the biggest FIGJAM ever, absolute tool!!!

 

[Crazy Steve]

Sterlo beat that merkin Harrigan with common sense and logic!!!

 

[Mr Fourex]

In the post game wrap up from last night, Bill Harrigan put his foot right in it and inadvertently admitted that refs go into game with preconceived notions abot certain players and teams in general.

Harrigan didn't put his foot in it....he knew exactly what he was doing.

Too much time had gone by for Bill's liking without hearing his name being mentioned in the media..

 

[Willow]

IMO, Harrigan would always looks for a way to be the centre of attention. He knew about self promotion and knew what sort of decisions would gain the media attention. That's what some people build a career on.

He must have relished the notion of walking to the sideline at kick off and penalising players for being a millimetre offside. No ref with a consideration for the players and the fans would get that pedantic. He must have known it would get a mention. Same goes for any altercation on the field or near the sideline where he saw the potential for controversy, imo the potential for self promotion was always utmost in his mind.

Sometimes he lost his cool. There have been games where players refused to respect him and he penalised them out of the match. To me, we fans don't pay good money to see that.

To quote one of the game's greatest referees, Col Pearce:

"No one has ever gone to a game to watch a man blow a whistle."

Col Pearce knew it.

 

[POPEYE]

You knew it was a big game when Col was the referee