Refereeing was appalling

[eozsmiles]

I don't usually use this term, but lol at the guy who said refereeing threads or criticism should be banned. They're professionals (in name at least). The players cop it, so too should the refs.

It was me. I shouldn't have said the threads should be banned - that was silly. I should have said that they are counter productive whingefests that micro analyse certain events in a game to hit an easy target rather than concentrate on more important trends that decide the match.
Remember the blokes in reserve grade are worse - both players and refs. So whenever we have a thread that says the referees are bad, what are we asking for? To replace them with the guys we know are worse? To do the whole game by video ref? I don't know what the options are. Nobody seems to make a suggestion how to improve the standard but they get hammered every week.

It is easy to have a go at the refs for making a couple of errors but what about the players? You say the players cop it but the Warriors missed 27 tackles in the first half last night!!! And they completed 23 of 40 sets in the match - 17 handling errors!!! And people think there needs to be thread saying the refs were appalling instead of one about the players. The ref's had a better game than the Warriors last night hands down and the players seem to be getting off pretty easy.

So instead of having a thread titled "How can the standard of refereeing be improved?" or one titled "The Warriors were appalling last night" we'll pot shot the ref's (again) and make no suggestion how to improve the situation. That method of protest or comment isn't very productive and in this case I don't think accurate. I thought the ref's were no better or worse than usual.

 

[MEE.]

What about the Foran no try? Looked like he grounded it to me.

 

[AuDragon]

It was me. I shouldn't have said the threads should be banned - that was silly. I should have said that they are counter productive whingefests that micro analyse certain events in a game to hit an easy target rather than concentrate on more important trends that decide the match.
Remember the blokes in reserve grade are worse - both players and refs. So whenever we have a thread that says the referees are bad, what are we asking for? To replace them with the guys we know are worse? To do the whole game by video ref? I don't know what the options are. Nobody seems to make a suggestion how to improve the standard but they get hammered every week.

It is easy to have a go at the refs for making a couple of errors but what about the players? You say the players cop it but the Warriors missed 27 tackles in the first half last night!!! And they completed 23 of 40 sets in the match - 17 handling errors!!! And people think there needs to be thread saying the refs were appalling instead of one about the players. The ref's had a better game than the Warriors last night hands down and the players seem to be getting off pretty easy.

So instead of having a thread titled "How can the standard of refereeing be improved?" or one titled "The Warriors were appalling last night" we'll pot shot the ref's (again) and make no suggestion how to improve the situation. That method of protest or comment isn't very productive and in this case I don't think accurate. I thought the ref's were no better or worse than usual.

Your last sentence makes me shiver, because unfortunately, it's true... :roll:

Yesterday, we supposedly had the best referees on display, and they managed to make a meal of it. They definitely had an influence in the final result, and that imo is unacceptable!

You are right that the Warriors made plenty of mistakes, which only compounded the refs mistakes against them. Note that most of the Warriors mistakes happened in the second half when they were chasing the deficit, which was partially due to refs mistakes...

It's not even fair on the winning team, because despite the fact they were better, people will always wonder what would've happened if the refs hadn't made those crucial mistakes?

 

[Sam_the_man]

For me the overall standard of the refs is the main worry. When thinking about who might be the refs in a rep match or GF it's a case of the best of a bad bunch andi think that is what we have been seeing in recent years, possibilly for the last decade.

 

[Sam_the_man]

Actually to add to the wonky reffing on display how about when Cherry-Evans tackled Johnson about 2 to 3 seconds after Johnson had chipped and was chasing? that should have been a penalty.

 

[ceagle]

Actually to add to the wonky reffing on display how about when Cherry-Evans tackled Johnson about 2 to 3 seconds after Johnson had chipped and was chasing? that should have been a penalty.

Your joking? Maybe it was 2 to 3 on the slow-mo channel 9 showed. It was really a non-event.

 

[Sam_the_man]

Your joking? Maybe it was 2 to 3 on the slow-mo channel 9 showed. It was really a non-event.

Maybe it just seemed two to three seconds late. But i did think it was a late tackle.
Didn't have an impact on the out come though. Manly were the better team and showed some touches of class in their win.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Actually to add to the wonky reffing on display how about when Cherry-Evans tackled Johnson about 2 to 3 seconds after Johnson had chipped and was chasing? that should have been a penalty.

How that was missed about 2m in front of a touchie just bewilders me. How can that happen? Surely it can't...unless they just didn't want to see what was in front of them.

Here's a question - do we think the refeereing is worse or is the scrutiny a lot stronger?

 

[Spot On]

Two tries to Manly in the first half on the back on questionable decisions. Would have loved to have seen the reply of when Mateo lost the ball in a tackle and Manly scored in the next set, but Channel 9 never showed it.

Edit: But have to add, as a neutral spectator I don't think the referring favoured one team or the other. Thought they did a relatively good job on the whole.

This and the Watmough play the ball. Three obvious ref errors against the Warriors really stood out. Not good enough.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

The ref's had a better game than the Warriors last night hands down and the players seem to be getting off pretty easy.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with that strongly. The refs bombed 3-4 vital calls (at least) - the Warriors didn't bomb 3-4 tries or gift the same amount.

I don't know how to improve the standard of refeereing. Hell, Bill Harrigan and Robert Finch clearly don't. My suggestion would be former players - they seem to have a better feel for the game than the current crop. And for right or wrong, I'd imagine the public would have a greater empathy with them.

 

[beads6]

Manly got away with tackling blokes without the ball a few times last night, it was clear from out set that they were the team the refs wanted to win. The Warriors deserved better but unfortunately Manly were given a leg up early.

 

[ceagle]

Why would the refs want Manly to win? There were a few crap calls against us aswell.

 

[MightyBronco]

It was bad, but ive seen worse. I laughed out loud at watmongs play the ball.

The standard of the reffing is going backwards. This needs to be corrected. How, i have no idea, but its becoming more of an issue.

 

[bennoonthehill]

This and the Watmough play the ball. Three obvious ref errors against the Warriors really stood out. Not good enough.

except for the fact that the DCE 'obstruction' was no such thing - you can't obstruct a player coming from behind you.

watmough play the ball was a shocker though

 

[Penrose Warrior]

except for the fact that the DCE 'obstruction' was no such thing - you can't obstruct a player coming from behind you.

10.1 A player is guilty of misconduct if he/she deliberately obstructs another player who is not in possession
(refer rule 11.1(j)).
10.2 A player who is not in possession, or is off-side, cannot be obstructed even after a knock on or forward
pass.
10.3 If a player is deliberately obstructed after kicking the ball and the referee deems that the defender was
not committed to the tackle before the kick, a penalty should be awarded as described in rule 6.2.3.
10.4 A player in possession cannot be guilty of obstruction. He can use the goal posts to avoid tackle, dodge
behind a ruck of his/her own players, or bore a way through his/her own pack.
10.5 If the referee deems that obstruction has occurred accidentally and play has been irregularly affected, the game should be stopped and recommenced with a scrum.

Not to get all law-ridden on you, but wherein lies your supposed 'from behind' clause?

It was an accident obstruction at worst. What are we, gridiron? So you're saying in future, all players on breakaways can run with a team-mate at their side to shade from would-be defenders? Can of worms that would be.

 

[The.X.Factor9]

10.1 A player is guilty of misconduct if he/she deliberately obstructs another player who is not in possession
(refer rule 11.1(j)).
10.2 A player who is not in possession, or is off-side, cannot be obstructed even after a knock on or forward
pass.
10.3 If a player is deliberately obstructed after kicking the ball and the referee deems that the defender was
not committed to the tackle before the kick, a penalty should be awarded as described in rule 6.2.3.
10.4 A player in possession cannot be guilty of obstruction. He can use the goal posts to avoid tackle, dodge
behind a ruck of his/her own players, or bore a way through his/her own pack.
10.5 If the referee deems that obstruction has occurred accidentally and play has been irregularly affected, the game should be stopped and recommenced with a scrum.

Not to get all law-ridden on you, but wherein lies your supposed 'from behind' clause?

It was an accident obstruction at worst. What are we, gridiron? So you're saying in future, all players on breakaways can run with a team-mate at their side to shade from would-be defenders? Can of worms that would be.

But what about Hayne in 2009 ? when he was weaving his magic about 20 out from the dragons line and a support player obstructed a dragons player(I think it was Fien).

IMO the Warriors player ran into the support player, its not the support players fault that the Warriors player was obstructed... The support player kept the same line.

Fair try.

 

[bennoonthehill]

so no one should support the player with the ball just in case they get in the way of an opposition chaser? what a great game that would be.

anyway i go the bit about not being able to obstruct a player if they are coming from behind you from here -

http://www.arldevelopment.com.au/fi...s/ARL_International_Laws_of_the_Game_2008.pdf

on page 39 -

It is permissible for player 4, after passing the ball, to slow down in order to position himself for a return pass from player 5. He must give ‘right of way’ to opponents who are running across in front of him to tackle player 5 but is not guilty of obstructing opponents who are coming from behind him

 

[RL1908]

A player running in support alongside or behind his team mate has no obligation to provide a free and unobstructed passage for a defender - it is only when in front of his ball-carrying team mate that he can't obstruct a defender. Neither rugby code would function if obstruction applied 360degrees around the ball-carrier.

Greatest example of support player & obstruction of a defender(s) > arguable Meninga ought have been penalised, but ET had no obligation to defenders (coming from behind) that collided with him > 1990 Ashes 2nd Test > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cH92KJExl8&feature=player_detailpage#t=716s

 

[Waitakere Warrior Fan]

It was me. I shouldn't have said the threads should be banned - that was silly. I should have said that they are counter productive whingefests that micro analyse certain events in a game to hit an easy target rather than concentrate on more important trends that decide the match.

The problem is that I rather think this misses the point. It's not a question of referee errors changing the outcome of the game or not. There were bad decisions made in the game, but it's impossible for anyone to say how the match would have gone without the mistakes.

The point is that some of the errors being made simply aren't good enough. Yet they've been happening for years and the guys running the game don't seem to be doing anything effective to get rid of them. Honestly, with two refs and two touch judges how did nobody notice a sideways play the ball? Why isn't it possible to have the sin bin available as an option for offending such as the elbow from George Rose? How did they miss Johnson being tackled after making his kick? Why was Foran's try disallowed

Mistakes like these shouldn't be happening in any NRL game. They certainly shouldn't be happening in the grand final where the referees should be at their very best. Yet the NRL hardly ever even admits to mistakes when they occur, let alone act to correct them.

 

[Beachy Eagle]

Geez there is still some whinging in here... some bad calls both ways, the worst was the watmough play the ball.
The rose thing was penalised, hasn't been a send off for 30 years and wasn't on sunday.
There were plenty of times the warriors were offside set after set not called. Brett stewart was kneed in the head late by Johnson no mention of that, DCE was hit late pretty much every time he kicked no mention of that, Hoppa's try was close enough to be 50/50 maybe even benifit of the doubt no mention of that, Lyons pass to hoppa early in the match was called forward and was flat at best no mention of that, if Lyon's pass was forward then Johnson pass to The beast for his try was also forward no mention of that could go on and on.......
So yeah other than the watmough clanger, there was some 50/50 calls that went against both sides.
Best team on the day won......