I've had enough of the video referee

[[FKN-SIK]]

As soon as i saw the first replay at the stadium on the big screen I called no-try as i saw straight away that he dropped the ball into Winitana and then regathered it

Heka Nani's no-try was too close to call. I couldn't tell properly from the replay. I was expecting benefit of the doubt. Was it ruled a double movement? I thought they called his foot went into touch as they played a scrum from it i think? :S

 

[skeepe]

Regardless of whether or not it hit Winitana - he wasn't playing at the ball for mine if it did hit him - in which case the try should have been awarded as it would have been play on.

Are you aware of the knock-on rule? You know, the one that states that if you fumble a ball and it touches the opposition it constitutes a knock-on? It makes no difference whether he's playing at it or not.

I assumed it was a simple rule that everyone knew.

 

[Apey]

There was a front on view that wasnt shown during the whole video ref saga. It was shown just after the no try ruling and it clearly showed that there ws no contact. Missed by quite a bit too.

Then the Merritt no try last night.... he must have been 6 inches off side. They have to be kidding.

Video ref should only decide whether the ball was grounded, thats it. They are f*cking the game.

exactly what I saw, the replay after it had not been awarded. Wasn't even close to touching him. How they could make a decision based on views all from behind is beyond me.

 

[Timmah]

Are you aware of the knock-on rule? You know, the one that states that if you fumble a ball and it touches the opposition it constitutes a knock-on? It makes no difference whether he's playing at it or not.

I assumed it was a simple rule that everyone knew.

The bolded part wasn't so clear to me. You make far too many assumptions.

 

[[furrycat]]

Are you aware of the knock-on rule? You know, the one that states that if you fumble a ball and it touches the opposition it constitutes a knock-on? It makes no difference whether he's playing at it or not.

I assumed it was a simple rule that everyone knew.

Correct. If I get the ball and I'm running at the opposition and I throw it at him, hits him in the chest, I regather and score- its a knock on even if he had no idea what was happening and didn't play it. Once I lose the ball and it hits an opposition player or the ground in any way, its a knock on.

So no... the try shouldn't be awarded. Its a knock on and always has been the rule.

 

[dragondad]

I'm a rugby league fan first, a Bulldogs fan second.

Dragons vs Bulldogs, Saturday night.

This is what angers me about the video ref - particularly in the heritage round.

Firstly, Bulldogs winger Heka Nanai gets a potential try disallowed as it was ruled double movement... before being pushed into touch. Now, i'm not so annoyed about the rule of him being put into touch, but as the video ref was checking the double movement, he slowed it down to super slow mo. What's the point of checking for DM in slow mo? In real time it looks normal and would've been a try. If you are checking for double movement, you must check it in real time to see how it's happening at the time. Of course it's going to look like a double movement if you play it frame by frame in slow motion :roll: so what's the point of checking it?

Secondly, Matt Cooper scored a try and it did not touch any Bulldogs player - causing a knock on. There was no proper video evidence to support the claim, and the benefit of the doubt which was applied should've gone to the attacking team (The Dragons) resulting in a try. It would've been a close game had it been rewarded and we would've been in for a grandstand finish and edge of the seat game.

Honestly, it's pathetic that the video referee's these days are looking for reasons NOT to give trys and it's made worse that it happens in the heritage round. I think this round would've been perfect to see how match's were played back in the days without video refs.


I've said it before, Video refs should only be there to check grounding, and touchies should open their eyes and be the one's checking onside. I'm also in favour of bringing back the in-goal judge for less use of the video referee. The game is slowing down.

There is no way in the world we were checking for a double movement on the Bulldogs no try in the far corner.The reason it was slowed down to slowmo was to check whether the ball hit the try line first or the foot hit the sideline first,not to check for a double movement.

 

[Timmah]

exactly what I saw, the replay after it had not been awarded. Wasn't even close to touching him. How they could make a decision based on views all from behind is beyond me.

Interestingly enough, that angle wasn't used by the VR... why?

 

[Ribs]

Not looking at all possible angles is simply inexcusable, especially in this case.

 

[[FKN-SIK]]

There is no way in the world we were checking for a double movement on the Bulldogs no try in the far corner.The reason it was slowed down to slowmo was to check whether the ball hit the try line first or the foot hit the sideline first,not to check for a double movement.

That's exactly what i thought and i was looking at

It was so close between his foot touching the sideline and the ball touching the tryline I couldn't tell which touched first. I was expecting them to give a try with benefit of the doubt

 

[Dogs Of War]

It looks like we have come to the same situation as the NFL did with the video ref. Over reliance on there decisions. I think the NRL needs to copy what they did to combat it, give the captains 2-3 challenges per half, they can use these for any incidents on the field (stripped balls, try's etc), but if they are wrong they lose a challenge. This will put the referee back in the position of making a decision on the spot, and then it's up to the captain to decide whether they agree with the decision or want to challenge it. This will hopefully cause less stoppages while we confer with the video ref in it's current form. This is something that can be trialled in the end of season games between teams that can't make the eight.

 

[Slackboy72]

Yeah the Nanai no-try was ruled a turnover not a penalty IIRC so it was for going out. Bad angle to tell but I think he did touch the line first. The Nightingale incident I think it did touch whatsisname but did Nightingale play at the ball for it to be a knock on? I thought it came off his shoulder but I've only watched the stadium screens which are sh!t. In the end I suspect it was an unjust but technically correct call. As to video refs in general, how did they get so bad so quickly? A few years ago they were okay. You got the right decision (assuming they hit the right buttons) but now they are perplexing us every week.

 

[Gaba]

It would be intereasting to see what the video ref would rule , if a player is in control of the ball as he passes and the pass is a forward one and it hits a player from the other team and rebounds back to the side who threw the pass, and then they score a try, if the video ref is called to make a judgement on the rebound he would have to rule the try, because it was a forward pass not a knock on even though it touches an opposition player.

If the video ref ruled on it and disallowed the try, it goes against the rules of a video ref

 

[bulldog]

What frustrates me is the inabilty of the video ref to see what every other league fan seems to see, I'm not talking about the knock-on - you can see in this thread that opinions are divided on that one - but there are a myriad of other decisions that either baffle me or frustrate me because they look so obvious and still take 5 or 6 viewings before a decision is made.

There was talk earlier in this thread that 1 angle of the replay was never seen by the video ref, that is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the fact that the video ref has to request a replay from the broadcaster who then decides which angles are relevant to show. Sure they can request certain angles and speed of playback, but ultimately it's up to the broadcaster to show the video ref what he needs to see. How hard would it be to set him up with his own feed and a tech to bring up any angle at any speed on demand, or crazily enough they may be able to view 2 or more simultaneous synchronised angles that can show far more than one ever could, like 1 angle showing the sideline while another synchronised angle shows when the ball was placed down for a try, 1 viewing of 2 angles will show far more than repeated viewings of inconclusive video. The technology for this is available and affordable, I can't for the life of me work out why it's never been used.

 

[Snoz]

Warren Smith and Greg Alexander were pretty incensed about the call if I remember correctly, both proclaiming at different points "there's no way that's touched Winitana".

But it really did look quite obvious I thought.

agree - i seen it hit dogs player shoulder.

then you get manly v parra when parra scored 1st try - everyone incl commentry & video ref missed a hindmarsh knock on seconds before parra player grounded ball.

 

[cupid]

the video reff has caused more madness before it was introduced

I say keep it but dont use every f**king try, only on the really hard ones.

 

[Dogs Of War]

agree - i seen it hit dogs player shoulder.

Did you see the front on shot though? From that view (which was one the Video ref didn't look at, it was only shown after the try was dissallowed), it looked like the ball was nowhere near the Dogs player. For me it was a try, though I wasn't that bothered as I support the Dogs.

 

[Abz]

...and there should also be a new rule introduced for the video refs looking at double movement - always play the video in real time.

 

[Eels Dude]

How often is a try dissallowed due to being in front of the kicker. ( Merrit's excluded as it was a poor decision) They check every time a try is scored of a kick but it's almost always a fair try. The touch judges should easily be able to take the responsiblility and call it. Video ref should be used only for in goal incidents.

 

[Billigan]

i have had enough with tony archer and im sick of him costing the broncos wins and he is a sh*t ref

 

[Timmah]

Costing victories? Grow a pair mate, what a pathetic whinge that is.