Referee talk 2013

[user_nat]

By the system, they got it right today and wrong last week IMO. So I guess that means they are improving..

In both cases there was not enough evidence to disagree with the on field ref.

 

[no name]

It all goes back to the original decision on field.
The 'benefit of the doubt' goes to that call.

 

[Big Pete]

It's all about consistency.

I actually thought Chris Ward had more time and proof to sufficiently say Srama was short as opposed to what Paul Mellor based his decision on. I would have been fine with the call as Perenara had the best view of it but it's definitely frustrating when it goes against you.

 

[Kiwi]

It all goes back to the original decision on field.
The 'benefit of the doubt' goes to that call.

in both cases the call was try from the ref so the video refs again stuff up. Just sick of seeing this happen, it's taken 2 rounds, 2 bloody rounds for them to look bad. Chances are Broncos still lose last week, but 20 - 6 is a totally different game.

 

[Quidgybo]

A bit of constructive criticism for the video refs. I think the guys in the video box haven't yet adapted to the new system. They're looking at the same angle three or four times and while that made sense in a system where they had to make a call, it doesn't make sense in a system where there is already an existing call on the field that should only be overturned if there "substantial evidence" that the existing call is wrong.

If after two replays of the prime angle you still can't decide if there is "substantial evidence" that the existing call is wrong then by definition it's not clearly wrong. The existing call should stand, end of enquiry. They seemed to have it right in round one where they'd look at it once, rarely twice, and then make a call. But in rounds two and three they've slipped back into old habits of asking to see things three or four times and slowing things down to frame by frame. It just doesn't make sense under the new system.

Guys you're adding pressure to yourselves that you don't need to. There's an existing decision made by the man in the middle, hide behind that call and stop over analysing it.

Leigh.

 

[gronkathon]

I agree to you do that it just becomes fodder for the talking heads to find one or two examples of getting it wrong and it will be a media shit storm which whips the casual fan up as well

 

[ek999]

The problem with the media is they ignore the facts when creating a shitstorm. Gus is a prime example with the Melbourne no try. He says it shouldn't have gone up to the video ref so he can't find something wrong to give it a no try. But the ref orignally said no try when sending it upstairs so it wouldn't have been given anyway

 

[firechild]

I agree. I was really impressed with the video refs in round 1 and was hoping this was a sign of changing times. There were some last weekend that were looked at what seemed like a dozen times before going back to the original decision. Often 1 look is enough to clarify that the on-field ref got it right.

 

[thorson1987]

The problem with the media is they ignore the facts when creating a shitstorm. Gus is a prime example with the Melbourne no try. He says it shouldn't have gone up to the video ref so he can't find something wrong to give it a no try. But the ref orignally said no try when sending it upstairs so it wouldn't have been given anyway

Was that the Cronk one.

Pretty sure the ref said it was a try

 

[ek999]

Yeah the Cronk one. I thought they said no try but I could be wrong. Smart replay doesn't work so I can't double check.

EDIT: Sorry it was said try by the ref

 

[TheDalek079]

I don't mind if they take an extra couple of looks if it means they make the correct decision

 

[BennyV]

I thought there was both good and bad examples of video-ref use in the Dragons-Raiders game:

Example 1 (Good) - Morris no try. As a Dragons fan, I disagree with the ruling/rule itself, but as a Rugby League fan, it had to be made due to consistency. Was originally called a try, then the video ref went back to check the 'obstruction', saw that it was the same as the Cronk no-try, and made the call fairly quickly. Tick to the video refs.

Example 2 (Bad) - Robinson try. Video ref called it a no-try based on tackled-without-the-ball, the video ref spent forever analysing it before overturning the decision on an assumption/50-50 call. The reason this rule was brought in was to eliminate the benefit-of-the-doubt, yet the videos refs seemed stuck in 2012 with this call.

Example 3 (Good) - Vidot? no try. Ref made a call that there was a knock-on by Vidot, and the video didnt have an angle that didnt show beyond a doubt that he did or didnt touch it. Thus, it gets referred to the original decision very quickly. Well done refs - perfect example of how the Kieran Foran incident should have been handled in last years semis.

 

[Eye_Shot_The_Sheriff]

That is all

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Hey Ray, could you possibly start making some threads with some actual substance?

 

[Apey]

Hi moffo.

 

[Kiwi]

Now it's OK to hold the defenses forwards in the scrum and run straight through where they would have been. Or is it, who the dark knows, next week that'll be penalised and the following week allowed, will depend who the refs have a fiver on I guess. The NRL and it's refs are still a big joke, three rounds in and still plenty of blatant bollucks calls.

 

[Loudstrat]

Another whinging at referees thread. FFS...........

 

[Someone]

I dont understand how the came to give it a try when there has been such a huge emphasis on the obstruction rule regarding second phase play yet that is allowed. the only reason that 'hole' was there for Slater to run through was because thaiday was held by the storm prop for about 1, 1.5 seconds, and thats all it takes to make a difference.

 

[eozsmiles]

Players have been doing it forever. When was the last time you saw it penalised? I think I remember one in a Parra v Canberra game a couple of years ago. Same as holding the marker. Happens about a hundred times a game, gets penalised once a year.

If this hadn't happened to Brissy on a friday night .....meh.

 

[no name]

The holding in the scrum was definitely part of the play put on by Widdop and Slater.
The Storm know how to push the boundaries, especially ones that haven't been explored before.
Expect a 'reaction' from the Storm's 'actions' by the NRL.