Ref's Call

[Olly_Rings]

is a blight on the game

Why do we have the supposed benefit of the doubt rule?

Hampstead goes to Stone because he is in doubt over Vag's try.

Stone throws it back to Mr Bean because he is in doubt as well.

That's 2 doubts.

So why wasn't it a try? The rule says any doubt goes to the attacking team.

Why go back to the ref to make a call when he was already in doubt as shown by him going to the video ref.

We have some really stupid rules in this game

 

[blacktip-reefy]

God damn your a smart arrsse olly.

go kill yourself before it gets out of hand.

 

[RICHO]

It was clearly not a try to Vagana, but the "Refs Call" thing IS a joke.

And how the hell was that a Cowboys try in the corner?
Dropped the ball and probably took the corner post and yet it gets awarded!

:roll:

 

[PHaTMaN]

Agreed Richo, how come the Cowgirls got the benfit of the doubt and Ty Williams was awarded a try when it looked as tho it was no try? And then Vagana does not get the same benefit applied and was not given a try.

 

[tUp]

because its a conspiricy and everyone is against the sharks

 

[wittyfan]

I can't believe the video ref said "Ref's Call" when it was clear beyond any doubt that Vagana didn't ground it. But the Cowboys try was very doubtful, though that can't be blamed for the loss.

 

[newman]

because its a conspiricy and everyone is against the sharks

Im beginning to feel this way, and I dont think its a conspiracy just against the sharks. The refereeing goes in most games appears to, deliberately or not, assist the rhythm of the stronger teams. I dont have any empirical evidence to back this up, but since Ive been back from overseas ive seen borderline call (particularly in the ruck) after borderline call favour the top teams, and it rarely seems to go the other way. More often than not, these calls are on the fourth and fifth tackles, and after this happening twice and three times in a row, defensive teams just cant handle the pressure.

The ref will then blow a couple of make up calls later in the game to the weaker side, but these tend to be early in the tackle count, when they are pinged on their line. Hence, the penalty count will appear even, and the NRL can point to the stats and say "the refereeing was equal and fair", but in reality the refs been doing one side a huge favour.

Its something thats impossible to prove, but my skepticism of special treatment is heightened by the fact that referees are not allowed to be criticised, and you will rarely see penalties replayed and questioned by the tv commentary teams.

 

[DJDL]

The one I am confused about from the other night is the drop out awarded to the Cowboys, after Peach had run the bacll back into the field of play.

I was at work, so only saw it once and didn't hear commentary so don't really know what happened.

But it was only a couple of tackles later than Bowen went in for the try that basically killed us.

What was the go with that?

 

[Sharkies all the Way]

The ref was wrong! It was a tricky one but the commentators certainly thought it shouldnt have been a drop out. Although we and other teams do get some bad calls against us, it really does look like the quality of refs is s**thouse now. There are to many mistakes occuring each week which determine games.

 

[b_shark]

DJDL I was confused about that as well - on replay he looked to be at least a metre from the back line so couldn't have stpped on it and taken the ball dead - so why was it a drop out?

 

[RICHO]

The referee ruled that another Sharks player (Sully?) knocked the ball forward into Peachey's arms :arrow: knock-on in-goal.

He got it wrong.

 

[bubs]

The only time a ref's call should be allowed is if there is no obvious angle for the video ref to judge if a chaser is on side. No proof, then refs call.
As soon as the video ref was called in for Vaganas decision, it should have only been try or no try.
I missed the replays but I thought he grounded the ball. Obviously I was wrong.

Also the Peachey incident, I THINK there was a forward pass in our own goal. But as I said, I haven't seen the replay.

 

[King of the Hill]

I'll tell you what else is a joke
The "relieving penalty" that is given in 80% of games during the first set of six tackles for offside
To ease the ref into the game

Most refs you can put your money on it being the 1st/2nd/3rd tackle

 

[tUp]

because its a conspiricy and everyone is against the sharks

Im beginning to feel this way, and I dont think its a conspiracy just against the sharks. The refereeing goes in most games appears to, deliberately or not, assist the rhythm of the stronger teams. I dont have any empirical evidence to back this up, but since Ive been back from overseas ive seen borderline call (particularly in the ruck) after borderline call favour the top teams, and it rarely seems to go the other way. More often than not, these calls are on the fourth and fifth tackles, and after this happening twice and three times in a row, defensive teams just cant handle the pressure.

The ref will then blow a couple of make up calls later in the game to the weaker side, but these tend to be early in the tackle count, when they are pinged on their line. Hence, the penalty count will appear even, and the NRL can point to the stats and say "the refereeing was equal and fair", but in reality the refs been doing one side a huge favour.

Its something thats impossible to prove, but my skepticism of special treatment is heightened by the fact that referees are not allowed to be criticised, and you will rarely see penalties replayed and questioned by the tv commentary teams.

kool :? i was kinda joking..........