R.I.P Touch Judges

[no name]

Today, the 3rd June 2009, marks a sad day for the Rugby League community. It will go down as the day the role of the touch judge died.

Forget the result and the what could have beens, the touch judge tonight was less than 5 metres away from Jarryd Hayne. He kept his flag down said play on and then when he goes on to score a try he says 'you better check it'.
The try is than disallowed through inconclusive footage coming from a camera behind the touch judge in question.

I think it's time we go back to having the on field ref(s) (whatever tickles the NRLs fancy) two touch judges and two in goal judges.
If tonights try was allowed the cameras would have looked at it once or twice, said it was a close call, congratulated Hayne for staying in and gone on with the game.
Similarly if the touchy had put his flag up they would have played it once or twice, said it was a close call, and congratulated the touchy on making the right call.

 

[Non Terminator]

Wow. Just wow. Sorry for having to double check so the decision would be better looked at. Bloody oath.

 

[Mr Saab]

No name...more like no idea. Things like that should be checked. It was like 2cm on the line.

 

[Vossy]

7 replies and still no Benenfit of the Doubt, f**king joke, they ruined a great try, when you looked at something for so long (boring the sh!t out of people) it creates doubt, wtf was there no BOTD?

no need for touch judges it seems, seen as they are now useless, get a couple of punters to run the lines

 

[Eels Dude]

Agreed. If the touch judge thought it was out he should have waved his flag, whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant. I think his foot touched the line... but if the touch judge is afraid to call it at the time this isn't something which should be put back on the video ref. It should be awarded a try and the touchie can face the consequences of his error.

 

[Butters]

The refs and touch judges in rugby league are so spineless compared to the rugby union ones. They're afraid to make calls and most of the time they'll refer to the video ref for the most blatantly obvious tries.

I think rugby union has it right as their video ref can only check the actual grounding process of the ball and not have to be called on every time a try is scored for a "possible obstruction". Or in tonights case even though the touch judge at the time believed Hayne had stayed in field they decide to check it anyway. It would've been play on if he didn't score ffs.

 

[Hanscholo]

No name...more like no idea. Things like that should be checked. It was like 2cm on the line.

You never see hayne's foot touch the line, his heel never touches the line on the back shot, from the forward shot it appears that it may have. Neither show him touching it. The only person that could have possibly have known was the touch judge. Imo, it should have gone back for a ref's call. I agree they should have checked it, but not 15 times and when it was inconclusive it should have gone back to waht the touch judge thought. That decision was a complete shocker.

 

[Red Bear]

the touch judge was right there and had a perfect view, why didnt he make a call? Too soft.

 

[seanoff]

too much doubt for it not to be given, how many replays did that take?

if the touchie couldn't call him out from a perfect position then the they should award the try.


I agree they should be rid of them if they are going to abdicate their decisions from a perfect position.

 

[Slackboy72]

I thought he stepped on the line regardless of what any dribbler commentator can say.

 

[Nullajet]

for him to have touched the line Hayne must have some kind of disability because no player runs, planting their heel!!!! The heel was above the line and an elevated camera angle is a poor excuse to go by when the touchy has done a brilliant job of being perfectly positioned..an absolute farce!

 

[Titanic]

read about it in tomorrow's paper.... suck it up and get ready for the next game.

 

[Jasdragon]

for him to have touched the line Hayne must have some kind of disability because no player runs, planting their heel!!!! The heel was above the line and an elevated camera angle is a poor excuse to go by when the touchy has done a brilliant job of being perfectly positioned..an absolute farce!

Agreed! How the hell can you run on your heals??? f**king bullsh*t call not to mention looking at it 50 times, doesn't that prove doubt and therefore it should be awarded.

 

[The Tank]

I thought it was an obvious no try considering he slammed his boot onto the sideline... unless they've changed the rules and the chalk counts as the field of play now???

 

[ozjet1]

that decision was f**king ridiculous.

here we have the show piece event of rugby league, going nationally at 7.30pm on television and another inconsistent application of the video referee generates yet another controversy. a rugby league follower since i 1st kicked a plastic ball around the henson park hill back in 1980 when i was 5, that video decision just killed the contest for me tonight. it was re-reviewed, drawn out and took the life out of the contest after only 8 minutes.

the pathetic thing about the whole video refereeing process is this. if Hayne was tackled before the goalline and the blues scored on the next play, the video ref would not have reviewed the Hayne touchline incident at all. the touch judges decision wouldve been final. but because Hayne did take it into the QLD in-goal, it became a reviewable aspect of the try.

what makes one play more important than another, even if they both contribute to the try? this is the ridiculous inconsistency of the video referring process. where an on-field referrees decision is acceptable on every single f**king play in a match except for the 4 or 5 where a try is scored.

the only reason a video ref should review a try is to check the grounding of the ball. that's it. the on-field refs already adjudicate on every other facet on every other play without review. their decisions shouldnt be questioned just because a try resulted on a particular play. that when it becomes inconsistent. how these f**kwits ( who've obviously packed their heads in one too many scrums in their time) in control of the rules cant realise this and it's effects on individual matches is astounding. then again, maybe it's not considering how the people within the game continue to do their best to kill it.

and also, get rid of this f**king stripping the ball bullsh*t! the farce has gone on for too long. if a player loses the ball, he's lost it! that's it! introducing these f**king grey areas into the game is killing it.

 

[Nullajet]

too much doubt for it not to be given, how many replays did that take?

if the touchie couldn't call him out from a perfect position then the they should award the try.


I agree they should be rid of them if they are going to abdicate their decisions from a perfect position.

I thought it was an obvious no try considering he slammed his boot onto the sideline... unless they've changed the rules and the chalk counts as the field of play now???

did you see the incident? Do you understand how people run? Do you understand the elevated camera view and the heel not planting aspect? Was there someone watching with a better view?

 

[kruzin]

Hayne also threw a ball at least 3m forward in that other try that was allowed, so the calls go both ways.

 

[eaglerock]

that decision was f**king ridiculous.

Here we have the show piece event of rugby league, going nationally at 7.30pm on television and another inconsistent application of the video referee generates yet another controversy. A rugby league follower since i 1st kicked a plastic ball around the henson park hill back in 1980 when i was 5, that video decision just killed the contest for me tonight. It was re-reviewed, drawn out and took the life out of the contest after only 8 minutes.

The pathetic thing about the whole video refereeing process is this. If hayne was tackled before the goalline and the blues scored on the next play, the video ref would not have reviewed the hayne touchline incident at all. The touch judges decision wouldve been final. But because hayne did take it into the qld in-goal, it became a reviewable aspect of the try.

What makes one play more important than another, even if they both contribute to the try? This is the ridiculous inconsistency of the video referring process. Where an on-field referrees decision is acceptable on every single f**king play in a match except for the 4 or 5 where a try is scored.

The only reason a video ref should review a try is to check the grounding of the ball. That's it. The on-field refs already adjudicate on every other facet on every other play without review. Their decisions shouldnt be questioned just because a try resulted on a particular play. That when it becomes inconsistent. How these f**kwits ( who've obviously packed their heads in one too many scrums in their time) in control of the rules cant realise this and it's effects on individual matches is astounding. Then again, maybe it's not considering how the people within the game continue to do their best to kill it.

And also, get rid of this f**king stripping the ball bullsh*t! The farce has gone on for too long. If a player loses the ball, he's lost it! That's it! Introducing these f**king grey areas into the game is killing it.

talk about dribble ^^^, even my wife sitting there watching said he touched the line after one look!!! Wake up you sore losers...

 

[Rastus_in_Melbourne]

NSW can't blame the ref for trailing by 18 points.

 

[Bulldog Force]

What about when Hayne was about to be penalised for Slater running into him. Deadset. Thank f**k common sense prevailed.