RedV Resurgence
Juniors
- Messages
- 750
Following last nights try/no-try fiasco, we need to look at the refereeing.
When a try is sent to the bunker, the video referee starts watching the replays, however the tv viewer only gets the coverage that the broadcaster chooses to provide. If a decision takes time to be made, the tv viewer gets to see the same views as the bunker referee, however when the bunker makes a quick decision, like last night, you are left wondering which view the bunker used to make a decision.
Watching the try last night, the bunker seemed to make a decision really quickly. By the time the TV broadcast showed the first replay a decision was made to award the try. I was wondering why haven't we see the head on replay and slowed it down to see who's hand was on the ball. I assumed at the time that the referee had watched and fully examined all angles, however as replays for the tv viewer were aired, I started to doubt the decision.
What really struck me was how fast the decision was made. I've watched many times when its was obvious whether a try was scored or not and the bunker continues to watch for other angles and slow motion and zoom in shots. Last night, the decision was made really quickly. Further, I did not see any downward pressure from the Cronulla player, I have doubt that he even touched the ball.
So the question remains, why do we have such varying approaches to determining whether a try has been scored. And the obvious answer is they don't appear to have a systematic approach. If the bunker refs last night did follow a standard approach and they confirmed downward pressure on the ball, then they can never again be bunker refs.
The NRL's policy to minimise the delay in the game by allowing the video ref to start determining the whether a try has been scored should be changed. The people watching it on TV and the crowd via the ground scoreboard should be shown the exact video the ref(s) are watching and allow them to follow the decision making processes. This happens when a video ref takes some time to make a decision and allows the viewers to understand the decision making process.
Another area that has been discussed on this forum, is the '6-again' decision making. I like the rule and we must be continued with. The problem is its not clear why some of the 6-again penalties are given Also, Ref's seem to go through stages in games where they are willing to give out 6-again and at other times of the game they will not award the 6-again. Whilst I like the new rule, consistent application of this rule his quite poor.
Watching the game in its newly sped up format, I feel the on-field referee is now overloaded watching the 10m defensive line; watching the play the ball; foul play; interference in the play the ball; slowing down the play the ball. I think we got rid of the second ref just at the same time as we sped up the game and Ref's are struggling more than ever.
When a try is sent to the bunker, the video referee starts watching the replays, however the tv viewer only gets the coverage that the broadcaster chooses to provide. If a decision takes time to be made, the tv viewer gets to see the same views as the bunker referee, however when the bunker makes a quick decision, like last night, you are left wondering which view the bunker used to make a decision.
Watching the try last night, the bunker seemed to make a decision really quickly. By the time the TV broadcast showed the first replay a decision was made to award the try. I was wondering why haven't we see the head on replay and slowed it down to see who's hand was on the ball. I assumed at the time that the referee had watched and fully examined all angles, however as replays for the tv viewer were aired, I started to doubt the decision.
What really struck me was how fast the decision was made. I've watched many times when its was obvious whether a try was scored or not and the bunker continues to watch for other angles and slow motion and zoom in shots. Last night, the decision was made really quickly. Further, I did not see any downward pressure from the Cronulla player, I have doubt that he even touched the ball.
So the question remains, why do we have such varying approaches to determining whether a try has been scored. And the obvious answer is they don't appear to have a systematic approach. If the bunker refs last night did follow a standard approach and they confirmed downward pressure on the ball, then they can never again be bunker refs.
The NRL's policy to minimise the delay in the game by allowing the video ref to start determining the whether a try has been scored should be changed. The people watching it on TV and the crowd via the ground scoreboard should be shown the exact video the ref(s) are watching and allow them to follow the decision making processes. This happens when a video ref takes some time to make a decision and allows the viewers to understand the decision making process.
Another area that has been discussed on this forum, is the '6-again' decision making. I like the rule and we must be continued with. The problem is its not clear why some of the 6-again penalties are given Also, Ref's seem to go through stages in games where they are willing to give out 6-again and at other times of the game they will not award the 6-again. Whilst I like the new rule, consistent application of this rule his quite poor.
Watching the game in its newly sped up format, I feel the on-field referee is now overloaded watching the 10m defensive line; watching the play the ball; foul play; interference in the play the ball; slowing down the play the ball. I think we got rid of the second ref just at the same time as we sped up the game and Ref's are struggling more than ever.
