Video Referee "tip-offs" -- why they damage the ga

[Doctor]

I'll start with this:

I'm not looking for excuses here but look we were on the end of a hiding from the ref, who was bloody pathetic, I think it was the last try that went to refs call and he had no hesitation in awarding a very dubious try, the Rauhi strip went their way, when it would be debatable weather it was a two man strip job, that type of decission according to todays paper is at the refs discretion, 11-2 penalty count a lot of which were crowd penalties the Cowboys were as bad as us in the play the ball area, the ref last night was the perfect example of a home town ref, that isn't why we lost though and as I said I'm not making excuses just trying to see why the boys just seemed to give up

I'll second the notion that we would have lost anyway -- but the referee was particularly ordinary last night.

If we put aside the ridiculous amount of penalties for alleged "flops" and "ruck slowing", the major crux of my argument is to do with video referees giving the on-field referees tips on what actually happened.

We saw last night a player (Witt perhaps?) attempt to ground the ball to score, only to drop the ball before it rolled out of the in-goal area -- the referee initially ruled that it was stripped by a Cowboy. They headed for a drop-out before he then reversed his decision, apparently because of a call from the video referee, Mick Stone, who told the referee the real story.

Fair enough -- I have no problems with this provided the correct call is made.

The problem is: it is inconsistently used. A good while after the decision mentioned above, you may have noticed a little kick put through that Craig Hall ended up getting another kick on. The Cowboys' player, in a soccer-style legs-first diving tackle, managed to knock the ball into touch. It was ruled, by the on-field referee, to have come off the Knights' player and "not played at" by the Cowboys -- this, as replays confirmed, was an incorrect decision. Yet the video referee did not intervene, despite having at his disposal both the time and the capability. Perhaps not. Perhaps the video referee cannot overrule such a decision -- but:

- Why can he overrule/change a decision about who the ball came off in the in-goal (without being officially referred to for a Try/No Try verdict), but NOT overrule/change a similar incident in the normal field of play.

If the NRL want to be serious about consistency, they ought to look at why a video referee is giving helpful advice on only some occassions.

They should either have the ability to give their informed advice on all occasions or on no occasions at all. Either one or the other -- otherwise it strikes me as highly damaging to the game.

 

[eddo]

They should either have the ability to give their informed advice on all occasions or on no occasions at all. Either one or the other -- otherwise it strikes me as highly damaging to the game.

I agree Ozzie. Some of the pay TV callers have been rabbiting on about the length of time taken for the video ref to decide on tries. I don't care how long they take as long as the right decision is made.
It's the same point here, I don't really care if the the video ref overules the onfield ref as long as it is applied consistantly so that the right decision is made.
I also believe that 50/50 decisions will go against your team & it's best not to concentrate "on the one decision that cost you the game". That's just being a bad sport. But when the tip off is used ad-hoc it does damage the game.

 

[antonius]

Ther-in is the prob with vid refs getting to involved, they either do the lot, or just rule on try no try. It is bloody ridiculous that they can rule on this and not that and so on, it's one or the other.

 

[~bedsy~]

I was under the impression that the video ref can't intervine unless asked?
However if he can, I don't have a problem with it... but it has to be consistant... after reading this and other posts... even the media have been saying he was not consistant last night and something should be done about it.
If the players have to be disiplined.... then so should the refs, yes sometimes they are... but it has to be something seriours for them to even look at it.

 

[antonius]

I believe the vid ref last night was Stone. (isn't he the boss?) hard to disipline the boss. The game is creating more and more grey areas especially with the use of the video ref.

 

[Doctor]

I believe the vid ref last night was Stone. (isn't he the boss?) hard to disipline the boss. The game is creating more and more grey areas especially with the use of the video ref.

He has what I believe is a full-time role as the NRL Referee's coach. He is an unusually loud man, hardly the sort of fellow that could be disciplined easily. He also has some hard-line views on "consistency", and the fact the fans are always complaining about the lack of it.

He makes some valid points about the criticisms though. He responds to referee-bashing with the questions:

"What do you do for a living?"
Possible Answer: "Accountant"

"And how well would you cope with 22,000 people yelling at you while you worked?"
P.Answer: "Not too well"

"And with several hundred thousand at home watching you working on television?"

etc etc

But my question is: Should Mick Stone offer his analysis in all situations or just one or two? Is it fair to both sides to only help out on some occasions?

 

[Dr_Zoidberg]

I agree, last night the ref and video ref were totally F***ed up :evil:

 

[Bring it home Knights]

The problem is: it is inconsistently used. A good while after the decision mentioned above, you may have noticed a little kick put through that Craig Hall ended up getting another kick on. The Cowboys' player, in a soccer-style legs-first diving tackle, managed to knock the ball into touch. It was ruled, by the on-field referee, to have come off the Knights' player and "not played at" by the Cowboys -- this, as replays confirmed, was an incorrect decision. Yet the video referee did not intervene, despite having at his disposal both the time and the capability. Perhaps not. Perhaps the video referee cannot overrule such a decision

What a shocker that decision was. He was playing the ball not the man and it was ruled not to have played at it. What a joke!

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

I think the video referee is also lowering the standards of new refs. No longer do they strive to be the best so they can make the correct decision as they know they have the video to fall back on...

The sooner we go back to the video ref JUST FOR TRIES the better.

There are 3 refs on the field and if they fail to see something then let the game go ahead without going back 4 tackles to an incident. If needed have another ref on the field, i know it has been trialed and i thought it was good, it wasnt a failure at all.

 

[Doctor]

let the game go ahead without going back 4 tackles to an incident.

Agreed. And therein lies the second problem with current refereeing procedures. I'm unaware what the official line on this is from the NRL's referee body, but I would hope there is an established procedure for exactly how far a referee can "go back" to past instances.

Does a referee play advantage -- if so, how long does this go before it becomes ridiculous. I'd like to think that whole sets of six are wasted by referees who go back to a 1st-tackle incident.

Furthermore; I think on Saturday night we also saw an example of how "advantage" isn't really giving much advantage to the team at all. It was George Carmont, from memory, who picked up a ball that had just been dropped by Nth Qld. He took a step, stumbled and fell, in the process losing the ball. Surely this is an example of a "double-knock-on"? Not so, according to the referee.

Clearly there are issues that need addressing -- perhaps it is just a case of informing the fans what the official interpretation is. I'm sure Mick Stone and Rob Finch are aware of the issues and have an "official" stance on each scenario. Hopefully this kind of thing is communicated to the fans -- otherwise people will assume the referees are not aware of it (which I'm sure isn't the case).

 

[Knight76]

Personally I dont have a problem with the video ref getting involved. Even if it means he only gets involved on some of the incidents. Atleast some of the incidents are getting picked up and correctly ruled on. Any team sport in the world you name is never refereed %100 correctly. So to expect a video ref to be an exception is ridiculous. If a foul happened that the ref didnt see but the video ref did then good let the ref know and blow the penalty.

Secondly with regards to the advantage played and how long it can be played for. There was a time when advantage was played until the attacking team lost the ball or ran out of that set of 6. Then a linesman would run in and the play would go back to where the incident happened for the penalty. Is this too much? I didnt think so... but I think the ruling is the video ref can not advise the ref on an incident more than one tackle previous to the current one.

As for double knock ons. They have to be instant. If a team drops the ball and carmont picks it up and " Gains controll of it " and then knocks on. It is not a double knock on.

I really get sick of the treatment referee's get. Sure they make mistakes as does everybody. Would you be happy if every single mistake you make at work is criticised by afew 100,000 people. Im sure you wouldnt. What sort of pressure would that put on you? I really wish rugby league would grow some balls and start a no tollerance policy with players abuse. If a player back chats he is marched ten. If the team continues to infringe a player has to go for ten. Simple. If a coach makes a remark the team should be fined $50,000. Watch some english rugby league and see how the refs should treat players. The reason I make this point is because the referee's image has alot to do with how his performance is percieved. I dont think referees make more mistakes now than they did 10 years ago. Its just they are criticised more. So players and coaches being allowed to abuse the referee sends the wrong message and starts a chain of events that ends up with the referee being vilanised.

 

[antonius]

A double knock-on is deemed to have occured when the second player has gained NO advantage, and Carmont didn't gain any advatage, it WAS a double knock-on and the Knights should have got the feed. Steve Lyon was abysmal on Saturday night, it wasn't the reason we lost but it didn't help, just about every ruling he made went against us, and some of those rulings were the rules being incorrectly interpreted by Lyons, he was the perfect example of refering to the crowd. Mick Stone was no better, some of his decissions were unbelievable. Again not why we lost but it's frustrating watching it.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

K76, the thing is.. The refs dont get bagged for every single mistake they make. They mainly get bagged when they reffed a game atrociously like lyons on the weekend.

 

[~bedsy~]

Yes Refs make mistakes.... but when I get annoyed at them is when they keep on making the same mistake every play.

 

[Doctor]

I really get sick of the treatment referee's get. Sure they make mistakes as does everybody.

So do I, and I've made this point on a number of occasions, much to the annoyance of those who would prefer to make absolute judgements on a referee's ability.

Referees can and do make mistakes. I defend their errors. My issue, particularly in relation to Saturday night's match, relates to how referees can become so intent on penalising and running the show that they perhaps lose some control over their usual attempts at impartiality. I'm not suggesting they set out with an intention to favour one team. But in the heat of the moment, after a couple of warnings, suddenly a normal tackle becomes yet another example (at least in the referee's eyes) of a team disobeying his instructions. In the heat of the moment, penalties and other decisions are given -- incorrectly if you believe the accuracy of replays.

So players and coaches being allowed to abuse the referee sends the wrong message and starts a chain of events that ends up with the referee being vilanised.

This is the fundamental problem with rugby league refereeing. Junior players see the way top officials are abused, and they get the impression that it is o.k to blast their own referees with similar forms of abuse. Fans see the abuse directed at first grade referees and it distorts any knowledge of the game's rules that they may have had initially.

It is time to cut back the top-level abuse of referees. Only then will the players, administrators and fans in lower grades learn to curb their tongues and physical aggression.

 

[Knight76]

CH: I dont think refs get bagged for every mistake they make. Sure not every mistake ends up being national headlines or even commented on in the media at large. But a whole heap of mistakes are scutinised by the commentators and this does have an impact on how people view refs. The cumulative effect of this is that public perception of refs drops and everybody is much more likely to bag out refs. Deservedly or not. Refs have a very tough job and a thankless one at that.

Oswin: As for refs becoming home town ref etc. I think this problem is much more complicated than it seems. You say refs go out determined to penalise and running the show. Well forgive me but thats their job. Further to this imagine if they penalised every single infringement that happens in a game. The game would be stopping every set of six. It is when refs attempt to be fair and let less blatant indiscretions go that things get complicated. It becomes much harder to be fair when a ref is trying to evaluate what deserves a penalty and what gets let go. Factor in the different refs having different ideas on what is enough to attract a penalty and confusion is unavoidable. Personally I think refs should enforce the rules exactly as they are written in the rule books. No doubt teams and some fans will whinge but teams will quickly learn to play by the rules or be penalised out of games. Enough of the slackness and weak refereeing.

Antonius: Ive been trying to locate an exact version of the rule but alas no luck. Whatever the rule states the way the rule is generally enforced is if one team knocks on and the other regathers and takes a metre or two run and then drops it, it is not a double knock on.

 

[eddo]

There are 3 refs on the field .....

I'd forgotten all about the linesman. How obsolete are they lately?

The replays do a much better job ruling on offsides (even with dubius camera angles) & whether a ball goes out on the full. Even when they are supposed to have an easy option of getting it right, like the incident with Craig Hall mentioned above, they still go missing.
AAAAARRRGGHH!

 

[Doctor]

Oswin:.... You say refs go out determined to penalise and running the show. Well forgive me but thats their job.

Perhaps you could let me and the rest of the readers know exactly where I said referees go out "determined to penalise and run the show"

Note this:

how referees can become so intent on penalising and running the show that they perhaps lose some control over their usual attempts at impartiality. I'm not suggesting they set out with an intention to favour one team. But in the heat of the moment, after a couple of warnings, suddenly a normal tackle becomes yet another example (at least in the referee's eyes) of a team disobeying his instructions. In the heat of the moment, penalties and other decisions are given -- incorrectly if you believe the accuracy of replays.

I didn't say they were "determined" to do anything. I said that, "in the heat of the moment", they start penalising teams and set a precedent for the rest of the game against that team. I specifically refer to Saturday night -- you cannot tell me that Steve Lyons was consistent with both teams in defence.

So the referee, out there on the field, gets caught up in the intensity of the game and gets a little hot under the collar when teams break the rules. Suddenly everything the teams do is blown out of proportion, and becomes a penalty-offence.

 

[antonius]

So the referee, out there on the field, gets caught up in the intensity of the game and gets a little hot under the collar when teams break the rules. Suddenly everything the teams do is blown out of proportion, and becomes a penalty-offence.

There is no better example of this than the Manly/Eels game and John Hoppa. I'm in no way defending the actions of Hoppa here, but there was a tackle involving him, and another Manly player where Hoppa was particularly aggresive (as he is) there was absolutely nothing wrong with the tackle, and both players went in almost simultaneously, Archer (who had been having a running battle with Hoppa previously) had no hesitation penalising him for a flop after the crowd went berserk at the aggresion in the tackle. Archer was obviously acting on previous events and the crowd re-action.(As Oswin stated "caught up in the intensity of the game, and hot under the collar)

 

[Knight76]

Oswin: you said

referees can become so intent on penalising and running the show that they perhaps lose some control over their usual attempts at impartiality.

All I did was exchenge intent for determined which isnt a big change. Intent means they have decided to do it prior to the game. Not heat of the moment as you described. I do agree the ref was not fair for both teams and ive covered why I think this happens in a previous post about letting certain penalties go etc.

Antonius: Refs are human with human feelings and emotions. If a player is at the refs throat all game or aggrevating the ref with remarks all game then he will attract penalties. Its upto the player NOT to become a menace and therefore hurt his team. Im not saying hoppa deserved his flop penalty.