I've had enough of the video referee

[Abz]

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.

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

I have only seen it on the big screens at ANZ Stadium, so I haven't seen it close up but I thought I saw a knock on in the Cooper try.

 

[skeepe]

Looked fairly obvious on TV that the ball hit Winitana's shoulder before Nightingale regathered. IMO anyway.

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

Looked fairly obvious on TV that the ball hit Winitana's shoulder before Nightingale regathered. IMO anyway.

Yeah, that's what I saw too.

 

[Dogaholic]

lol at this thread. You trying to earn some respect?

Refer to my sig...

 

[scottttt]

In the warriors vs cowboys game, the video ref took a good few minutes to look at a clear cut warriors try. He must have looked at it about 6 times - looking for what? i dont know. In the end he said Ref's call when it was clearly a try. Any muppet could have come to that conclusion that it was such a black and white try, yet the so called professional video ref couldn't.

 

[Dr Crane]

Yeah, that's what I saw too.

It's hard to believe there is another possible interpretation.

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

Magic ball theory?

 

[skeepe]

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.

 

[Ribs]

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.

 

[Pierced Soul]

i didnt think it hit the dogs player....

what irks me is what gould has stated many times - that being the video ref looks for reasons NOT to give the try. it needs to be simpler and more clear cut whetehr anything significantly contributed o the try, not whether a player 50m away from where the ball lands was 10cm in front of the kicker.

get rid of these 'technical' rules, i.e. the disallowed roosters try vs brisbane which was a poor read form hodges, not some weird 'corrdior' you cnat have receivers run in.

and abz is right, super slo-mo for double movements is ludicrous.

 

[Ribs]

The bullsdogs try wasnt allowed for going into touch, not a double movement. Saints were given the scrum feed 10 out, otherwise it would have been a penalty to Saints. Was another close no try decision though..... could have gone either way.

The sh*t thing is you dont know whether to celebrate a try any more.....

Your team goes over and you half go up..... then look at the ref..... sit back down.......wait 5 minutes......

 

[Timmah]

I'm sorry to say it but Saints were never going to get close. That Cooper try should have been awarded, I said it myself, but at the end of the day we were far too convincing in the opening 60 for that decision to have changed the result.

As for the Heka no-try, I'm not fussed. You win some - you lose some. Neither of the situations described were critical, match breaking decisions IMO.

 

[Timmah]

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.

 

[Brownie.Kougari]

get rid of them...

useless..

 

[Abz]

i didnt think it hit the dogs player....

what irks me is what gould has stated many times - that being the video ref looks for reasons NOT to give the try. it needs to be simpler and more clear cut whetehr anything significantly contributed o the try, not whether a player 50m away from where the ball lands was 10cm in front of the kicker.

get rid of these 'technical' rules, i.e. the disallowed roosters try vs brisbane which was a poor read form hodges, not some weird 'corrdior' you cnat have receivers run in.

and abz is right, super slo-mo for double movements is ludicrous.

That's right mate. The video ref is meant to be for confirmation that it's a try, not to look for reasons not to give it. I find the touchies useless now with the video ref. I wasn't at the game, so people at the game may have thought it was, but after watching the replay on the Sunday footy show and all the panellists saying the same thing (It should've been a try) I was agreeing with them. It's bad for the game. (That incident anyway) and in regards to the Bulldogs double movement play, I wasn't disputing that he went into touch because we all clearly saw that he went into touch and no, it was rightly so ruled no try, however, I was questioning that, at the time, they were looking for possible double movement... my argument is why look for a double movement in slow mo? If they did that to Hazem El Masri in the 2004 GF it would've been ruled no try even though it wasn't a double movement.

 

[Callan Pk]

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.

From the high angle it looked like it touched his back, from the lower angle theres no way it got even close. Illusion

 

[Joe Davola]

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.

It doesn't matter if Winitana was playing at the ball or not. The ball went forward off Nightingale and that is a knock on the moment it hits an opposing player - as it clearly did in this case. No try - correct decision.

 

[Ribs]

The decision had to have been.... "it looked like it touched his back". There was no conclusive proof, so he gave a no try as it looked like it might have. FFS..... awarding a no try on that? What benefit of the doubt is there? It certainly didnt change the outcome of the game at 26 - 6 but had they showed the other angle it would have been awarded. So why didnt they?

 

[NK Arsenal]

Gus Gould is that you?