Ref Watch 2014 (aka the Skeepe Thread)

[The Eagle]

brooks is a small kid, and a big bopper smashing into his legs while he's trying to move quickly to the left meant he fell. i seriously doubt it was a dive, hes never come across that way to me.

good example of obstruction for refs to take note of. Not a textbook one, but it's a lineball one that leans on the side of obstruction.

the one on friday though... gee whiz.

 

[Patorick]

Andrew Webstar wrote a good article in today's herald exposing how much hysteria has been caused by so-called ref "howlers".

Most of these decisions are line-ball at best and could go either way. Us supporters are turning into a bunch of sooky whingers who just look for someone else to blame when our team looses.

As webby says, show me a game where the ref cost you the result and ill show you a hundred instances where your own team stuffed up much much worse.

Yep.

North Queensland remain filthy the final, match-winning try to Sea Eagles star Kieran Foran was allowed despite an obvious obstruction by team-mate Jamie Buhrer on Cowboys’ Ray Thompson.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...north-queensland/story-fni3fbgz-1226891528834

Pretty sure Buhrer scored the match winning try. Foran set it up.

 

[Apey]

tbh some people here are worse than the referees. Easy no-try.

 

[Parramatta1947]

It was a dive but if you get away with it, players will keep doing it.

And Brooks or any player is never going to admit diving.

 

[no name]

I don't think Brooks dived.
And even if he did, it's up to the decoy runner to not make contact on the way through. Gower made contact with Brooks.

 

[Lucas-Con]

Definetely a dive looking at it but it happens but again it comes down to playing down to the whistle and Parramatta should've gotten at least 2-3 of the 4 kicks in goal and would've gone been way in front and stopped any hope of the tigers getting back into things.

 

[2010Dragons]

If he did dive, which I don't think he did, he is actually very good at it seeing as though he got his side the penalty

I dont think so.....checcin the dumb f**k is a shit useless referee who fell for the oldest trick in the book.

 

[Pete Cash]

Actually upon watching the Raiders game again I am not so sure the Refs got it wrong. I felt initially that it was a blunder but

The line you can see behind the Melbourne player is sunlight. His forearm is near the try line but its hard to say he is over.

EDIT

Sorry it appears this shot has been gone over in the thread. I have just seen people mistaking the sunlight for the try line over the last few days.

 

[no name]

I dont think so.....checcin the dumb f**k is a shit useless referee who fell for the oldest trick in the book.

???
Checcin ruled try (incorrectly), the VR overturned it (correctly).

 

[Card Shark]

Actually upon watching the Raiders game again I am not so sure the Refs got it wrong. I felt initially that it was a blunder

I find it impossible to believe it didn't touch the tryline at some point.
He was sliding...so much the he slid over touch in-goal without touching the tryline or ingoal first. Come- on, use a bit of common sense refs.

Refs called it no try, so video ref has to go with that call I suppose .

 

[Card Shark]

Brooks good player but hopeless diver.

Not hopeless.... It worked!

 

[bileduct]

Actually upon watching the Raiders game again I am not so sure the Refs got it wrong. I felt initially that it was a blunder but

I initially thought it was 50/50 but after seeing Tony Archer on NRL360 tonight and hearing the referee audio I think they made the right call. The touch judge was very confident in calling it a no try and he had a great view.

 

[BigSteveo]

I initially thought it was 50/50 but after seeing Tony Archer on NRL360 tonight and hearing the referee audio I think they made the right call. The touch judge was very confident in calling it a no try and he had a great view.

http://video.news.com.au/v/211109/NRL-360-Tony-Archer-on-controversial-referee-decisions
For those playing at home.

I think there is a lot of advantages in broadcasters actually playing the referee/touch judge/video referee audio live rather than commentators giving an often uninformed opinion and then spending countless minutes debating on what the video referee decided.

This also can help remove days of bad press about dodgy decisions until Archer comes out on Tuesday and clarifies the decision.

Ideally broadcasters should be able to provide alternate audio streams that can be switched between commentary & referees. I know Fox has the capability, but we all know Nine wouldn't do it because of... reasons.

It worked well in the world cup, and you can get hilarious results like the Sonny "Blue" Williams no try.

 

[RL The greatest game]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-man-for-the-job/story-fni3fbgz-1226897632280
Greg Harley is not happy with Tony Archer as the refs boss. I was never happy with Tony Archer as a ref, especially when he reffed at international level. I found his bias in favour of Australia at international level embarrassing and i speak as a true blue Aussie.

 

[Canard]

http://video.news.com.au/v/211109/NRL-360-Tony-Archer-on-controversial-referee-decisions
For those playing at home.

I think there is a lot of advantages in broadcasters actually playing the referee/touch judge/video referee audio live rather than commentators giving an often uninformed opinion and then spending countless minutes debating on what the video referee decided.

This also can help remove days of bad press about dodgy decisions until Archer comes out on Tuesday and clarifies the decision.

Ideally broadcasters should be able to provide alternate audio streams that can be switched between commentary & referees. I know Fox has the capability, but we all know Nine wouldn't do it because of... reasons.

It worked well in the world cup, and you can get hilarious results like the Sonny "Blue" Williams no try.

Agree 100%.

Guys like Gould need to understand his influence on viewers.

Often he is just plain wrong or worse being stubborn even in the face of evidence.

These guys create more negative publicity than Rothfield.

 

[ek999]

http://video.news.com.au/v/211109/NRL-360-Tony-Archer-on-controversial-referee-decisions
For those playing at home.

I think there is a lot of advantages in broadcasters actually playing the referee/touch judge/video referee audio live rather than commentators giving an often uninformed opinion and then spending countless minutes debating on what the video referee decided.

This also can help remove days of bad press about dodgy decisions until Archer comes out on Tuesday and clarifies the decision.

Ideally broadcasters should be able to provide alternate audio streams that can be switched between commentary & referees. I know Fox has the capability, but we all know Nine wouldn't do it because of... reasons.

It worked well in the world cup, and you can get hilarious results like the Sonny "Blue" Williams no try.

Yeah I think it worked well in the World Cup and also works well in the Rugby Union and Super League. Why we don't do it in the NRL I have no idea

 

[Gustavo]

One thing that annoyed me with the Manly game, you could hear through the tv, refs coaching the players to hurry up, move quicker etc etc. Call held, blow a penalty. It's that simple.

Why we hear that, but not the audio whilst making a decision for a try is beyond me.

 

[Frailty]

One thing that annoyed me with the Manly game, you could hear through the tv, refs coaching the players to hurry up, move quicker etc etc. Call held, blow a penalty. It's that simple.

Why we hear that, but not the audio whilst making a decision for a try is beyond me.

Oh it's this thought again.

Referees have always talked to players, just not referring to players names but by their numbers generally. The reason to do so is to keep the game flowing rather than penalty after penalty. The best games have very few penalties but are well controlled because of a referees communication.

 

[LineBall]

Oh it's this thought again.

Referees have always talked to players, just not referring to players names but by their numbers generally. The reason to do so is to keep the game flowing rather than penalty after penalty. The best games have very few penalties but are well controlled because of a referees communication.

Bullshit. Refs started coaching players in the harrigan era when he would try to blow as few penalties as possible during a match.

Go back to Mick Stone and Barry Gomersall. They would call held and the tackle number and that was it. Step out of line and get 5 or 10 in the bin.

Players are full time professionals. If they infringe, penalise them.

 

[Frailty]

Bullshit. Refs started coaching players in the harrigan era when he would try to blow as few penalties as possible during a match.

Go back to Mick Stone and Barry Gomersall. They would call held and the tackle number and that was it. Step out of line and get 5 or 10 in the bin.

Players are full time professionals. If they infringe, penalise them.

Not bullshit at all. Have a chat to any of the referees from the 80s and early 90s, including Mick Stone.

I'm not saying today's referees are weaker - far from it. But to claim the talking didn't exist until recently is a load of crap.