What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Refereeing Transparency & Consistency

dannyt

First Grade
Messages
9,119
Anyone else notice Graham constantly questioning Atkins in the first 20 minutes when we were on top? The next 40 minutes saw 80% possession to the sharks on the back of set restart after set restart, and what proved to he unassailable lead despite coming close.

Our captain, on the other hand, said nothing. Good captains put pressure on the ref, and it increases your chances of getting a 50-50. Look at Smith.

Now, whether it would've got us more restarts, or maybe the sharks get less, we'll never know.

IMHO, the restarts and possession against in that 40 minutes cost much more than a dud clarke decision. Indeed, we should be expecting dud calls from clarke ever since that semi final against the dogs in Kogarah- pretty sure it was 1995.
 

Gareth67

First Grade
Messages
7,218
The thing is Gareth was that 2 morons were watching, 1 ex referee and 1 ex player and both missed it. Add to the fact that a decision was made in about 30 seconds then the fox commentary ( Ginnane, Roach, Parker ) nailed it within the 1st replay after the try was awarded and all agreed Dufty got their 1st and a howler of decision was made by Clark

Yes , that certainly makes the / their decision so much the worst , they should had replayed the video at least twice , preferable thrice . However last night it was the Dragons and next week yet another team , hopefully in that case it will not cost the team ( with the exception of the rorters or storm ) the match .
 

BBTB

Juniors
Messages
580
The bad calls should not have cost us the game, I agree.

But the OP has a point. The "6 again" rule has become so arbitrary. It's intention was good, however refs can call 6 again whenever they want with no accountability.

We were never anywhere near in the race for the comp, but such calls need clarity. And like @RedV Resurgence said, the Dufty call was so fast, it makes the bunker obsolete.

Im not saying we would have won, in fact we had chances for players like Norman / Hunt and co, to win the game.

But they need to fix the bunker, and give some guidelines for the fans as to the 6 again rule.
Good call.... It was fantastic the 2or3 rounds after the 6 again rule was bought in, but now, the referee
is using it to piggy back their favorite team up the park... And out of trouble.
It's just turned into a f**kn joke....
They the referees, are again orchestrating games for Foxtel.
Our game against the shonkies, was a classic example...
We , just not ment to win this game.
 

boardlumps62

Juniors
Messages
1,422
When I watched it live it appeared a Cronulla try and when the bunker said try I thought that was a quick decision must have been obvious. But no a slow motion replay from the front showed Duftys got there first. Got to ask why the quick decision was made maybe to make up for the earlier no try over obstruction which I thought a try.
 
Messages
1,585
It’s not the first time Steven Clark has screwed us at Kogarah.

We need to bring back the bucket of spit

The one thing I don't get with pretty much every howler this year, (Maybe excusing Manly's shafting against Parramatta as it was a split second call, but even then clearly not forward) is that it seems that everyone except the bunker is able to understand what the correct ruling would be. It's nowhere near good enough and albeit minimalistic so far at least there is some form of accountability beginning to take place
 

Dragon David

Bench
Messages
2,635
When I watched it live it appeared a Cronulla try and when the bunker said try I thought that was a quick decision must have been obvious. But no a slow motion replay from the front showed Duftys got there first. Got to ask why the quick decision was made maybe to make up for the earlier no try over obstruction which I thought a try.
Sorry boardlumps62 but the obstruction no try to Ramien was after the try to Williams.
 

Lovemedragons

Juniors
Messages
951
If I have said once I have said it a hundred times - eliminate the bunker the game does not need it . It’s fine to say that “ Well they do get most decisions correct , but there is always going to be one that is not - after all they are only human . “ The bunker was introduced for that very reason - to take the human error element out of the equation , however it is still present and always shall be whilst humans are involved.

Get rid of the 2nd referee , the game would run much better with only the one . Of course the major hurdle in this would be the man’s capability - he would need to be on top of his game . This , I believe would also eliminate the unnecessary ‘ player to ref. ‘ chats that occur from time to time , which gives one team an edge over another e.g. C.Ref.Smith .

The worst problem of the bunker itself is that when a mistake is made and it cost a team the match , well they are minus 2 very valuable competition points that no amount of apologizing will ever account for , there gone to Gowings - for good .
they dont need humans removed from decision making, just Stephen Clark will do.
 

Lovemedragons

Juniors
Messages
951
Anyone else notice Graham constantly questioning Atkins in the first 20 minutes when we were on top? The next 40 minutes saw 80% possession to the sharks on the back of set restart after set restart, and what proved to he unassailable lead despite coming close.

Our captain, on the other hand, said nothing. Good captains put pressure on the ref, and it increases your chances of getting a 50-50. Look at Smith.

Now, whether it would've got us more restarts, or maybe the sharks get less, we'll never know.

IMHO, the restarts and possession against in that 40 minutes cost much more than a dud clarke decision. Indeed, we should be expecting dud calls from clarke ever since that semi final against the dogs in Kogarah- pretty sure it was 1995.
agree, a squeaky wheel gets the oil, we need a whinging bastard of a captain just like the Storm have.
 

latemail

Juniors
Messages
440
I can cop the on field ref getting it wrong as he sees it once in real time but how the f**k do these dumb merkinS in the clunker get it wrong when they can view it in every angle
If you showed a 5 year old that video clip and asked him who’s hand touched the ball first I would guarantee he would have pointed out Dufty
They are a f**king embarrassment to the paying public who keep getting f**ked over by these dirty f**king useless imposter masquerading as referees
 

Lovemedragons

Juniors
Messages
951
I can cop the on field ref getting it wrong as he sees it once in real time but how the f**k do these dumb merkinS in the clunker get it wrong when they can view it in every angle
If you showed a 5 year old that video clip and asked him who’s hand touched the ball first I would guarantee he would have pointed out Dufty
They are a f**king embarrassment to the paying public who keep getting f**ked over by these dirty f**king useless imposter masquerading as referees
you say this as if you actually believe Clark has more brains than a 5yo lol
 

possm

Coach
Messages
13,931
I'd like to see the ref just send up a request for the bunker to check for any wrong-doing without saying whether he thinks it is a try. If the bunk is unsure then send it back as ref's call.

I'd also like for the commentators to shut up so we can hear what the bunker is saying. They just yabber on about rubish and we mis the conversation.

Placing a virtual grid over the field should clear up many off-side decisions by the bunker fairly quickly. In today's world this should not be a difficult thing to do.
 

TruSaint

Coach
Messages
18,906
The photo is deceiving as the ball is still in the air. I’m certain he grounded it on the dead ball line. Even Saab’s reaction gave it away.

Yep, the Dufty call was crap, but this one was correct.
That still frame is deceiving.
Watch the replay again. No try.
 

dannyt

First Grade
Messages
9,119
The photo is deceiving as the ball is still in the air. I’m certain he grounded it on the dead ball line. Even Saab’s reaction gave it away.
Given the actions of the bunker after Williams celebrated his no try, perhaps Saab and Dufty should've celebrated instead of giving themselves up.
 

RedV Resurgence

Juniors
Messages
660
So the NRL has sacked the bunker ref(s) from Saturday's game and that has fixed the problem? No.

The key questions the NRL and media should have asked and have once again failed are:
1. were all camera angles of the try reviewed ?
2. Was downward pressure confirmed by the Cronulla player in any of the shot?
3. If doubt exist, such as who's hand touched the ball, then did they zoom in ?

The NRL should come out and explain the decision making process the bunker refs should follow.

No doubt that an event like this one will happen again in the coming weeks and it would be a major failing by the NRL if they didn't ensure video refs follow a standard process before making a determination. Based on Saturday's evidence, it would appear that the refs follow what ever process they what in making a decision. That's not good enough.

By the way, I still think errors will be made in the future, however the number of really bad decisions ( Like Saturdays) should be greatly reduced.
 
Last edited:
Top