Why 2009 Grand Final was so good

[lifesgood]

People are going to bash me for Archers call, Even though i completely agree with it being a penalty.

This years Grand final was one of the best matches ive watched simply cause of one thing.

We used the video ref once (and only looked at replays twice) and the refs did not play a part in the game, they were not even noticed.

The game was so free flowing and it just allowed all momentum to swing either teams way and showed how footy is suppose to be played.

Im not saying the Video Ref needs to be finished, we need it to make calls like in the Toyota Cup game for the Storm last try costing the Tigers. That game was free flowing as well and allowed teams to gain momentum through their own skill and determination not through refs making terrible calls.

The Video ref needs to be limited to how many views he can look at or have a time limit! If it goes past, make it a refs call!

Tony Archer made the wrong call in penalising someone for coming back over the top and knocking ball loose on the field. But it was a penalty because Slater is trying to play the ball and Fui still had a hold of his legs. Not here to discuss that, I just wanted to get my point across at how good footy is when the refs and video refs don't try to take over the game with sh*t penalties when the game is getting tough and then screw teams chances of winning.

GREAT GAME AND GREAT SEASON.

 

[Butters]

The video ref half arsing a try/no try decision is not a good thing. Have a bit of patience and wait the extra minute for them to actually make a proper decision.

 

[Voodoo Rock]

What we have at the moment is a host of inexperienced ref's who are being taught to ref in the bill harrigan style of way, ie no penalties and very few stoppages. Sadly not all of them are as fit as Bill was and struggle to keep up with the game

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

It was a good game, and it was good that we only went to the video ref once, but there are 4 sets of eyes on that field and we are still missing the most obvious of calls.

If anyone saw the U/20's GF, that last Melbourne try was a disgrace because they have a ref, 2 touch judges and 2 ingoal refs and yet they still missed such an obvious error.

Good on the refs, but they still arent good enough.

 

[Timmah]

The last try to Widdup in U20's was a try. The Luke Patten try a few weeks back where he grounded with his fingertips then head was a try, no reason this shouldn't have been.

The biggest decision I saw fudged @ the GF was by the video ref in First Grade, when Fui's foot made contact with the touchline around the same time he grounded the ball. It wasn't what the VR checked so he got away with it, but the angles I've seen indicated it was out moments before the ball went to ground.

 

[jimmee007]

This is where the challenge system is needed only go to the video for a challenge.

3 challenges a game, keep them if your right lose them if your wrong.

This allows 2 things to happen,
Firstly, puts the onus on each side. If the ref got it wrong and you didnt challenge then you didnt see it either.
Secondly, causes the ref to make decisions(how many times have we seen a ref hold back from making a decision because a team are close to scoring)

Parra fans would have nothing to complain about if Nathan Cayless was allowed to challenge that decision.

 

[Timmah]

Challenge system would be even worse than the current VR.

Currently, when the ref has doubt - he goes upstairs immediately.

Under the challenge system, the players have doubt, they tell the captain, who approaches the ref, who THEN goes upstairs. Extended amount of time would make fans even more frustrated.

Seriously, the amount of decisions in the game made wrong, that figure is is miniscule compared to the amount of correct decisions.

 

[lifesgood]

The challenge system would be dreadful

look how long it takes to finish an nfl game!!!

 

[jimmee007]

possibly it can only be decided on penalties and the in goal area. One thing is for sure a coach can not go into a press conference and blame the ref for not giving a try or not going upstairs, because they had the power to change the decision.

It is also not the decisions we get wrong but the time we are taking to get to a decision. Maybe limit to challenge to 2 per game.

Our goal should be not disrupting the flow of the game and maximising the correct decisions at the same time. Keeping the partisan fans interested and not changing the channel or getting bored at a game.

 

[Lambretta]

I thought it was a good final, played well, between two fairly evenly balanced sides.

The Storm were a couple of percent better than Parra overall and they thoroughly deserved their win.

I'm proud of Parra for not capitulating as other teams did against the Storm when they were behind. Parra made a real game of it and kept the Storm right on their toes.

The Slater penalty, whilst tough on Parra, was fine with me. It was a classic 50 / 50 call and I've seen them given either way. I think Archer did a good job of spotting that Slaters legs were being held. Other referees may not have seen it as it all happened really quickly.

As a neutral, I really enjoyed the game.

 

[Timmah]

possibly it can only be decided on penalties and the in goal area. One thing is for sure a coach can not go into a press conference and blame the ref for not giving a try or not going upstairs, because they had the power to change the decision.

It is also not the decisions we get wrong but the time we are taking to get to a decision. Maybe limit to challenge to 2 per game.

Our goal should be not disrupting the flow of the game and maximising the correct decisions at the same time. Keeping the partisan fans interested and not changing the channel or getting bored at a game.

Lets say for the sake of the argument that the Fui/Slater incident was in fact a stuff-up by the refs (which we now know it wasn't).

Are you suggesting that we stop play to look at the video mid-set? What if Slater had retained possession and they contested the penalty?

A team could save up it's challenges and use them all at the end of the game to simply have a breather.

The current system isn't as bad as some make it out to be. We've done too much of fixing things that aren't yet broken, and thereby breaking them - let's not put the cart before the horse.

 

[jimmee007]

why would a team save them if there is something they believe they can take advantage from.

And it is not mid set if a penalty has been given. its the start of a new set.

But while not trial it, if it doesnt work dont use it. A trial game would be great for those kind of initiatives.

I agree there are definatley bigger things we need to look at in the game and sure these should be proiritised but its not broke dont fix it mentality is one that lacks foresight.

 

[Parra]

Let's say the Fui/Slater incident was a complete balls up by the referees - which we now all know it was.

A challenge system, to be a coaches call, not a captains call would sort this out on the spot. No need to put a max on the challenges either - the coach should lose an interchange each time his challenge is dismissed. This will stop frivolous challenges.

As for expediency over accuracy - if that was the case we would not have the video ref now. NRL policy is accuracy over expediency in some very specific cases. A challenge rule would allow consistency for all rules & most situations in a match - not just high shots and some aspects of a try.

It would also help to have officials competent enough to announce a ruling - again something the NFL do flawlessly, while the NRL flounders around. Archer was so quick to blow the whistle he didn't even know what the penalty was for - this is from a bloke who called "2, play it" earlier in the match, only to let the tackled player get up and run again.

Grand Finals coming down to spurious, unexplained refereeing decisions and field goals - very rugby-like and worthy of exactly the same valid criticisms.

 

[icewind]

one unsuccessful challenge imo is enough. that way, teams will only use it when they are 100% sure there is a blatent error

 

[twistedbydesign]

I think it would be sweet to have a challenge system, with unsuccessfull challenges costing the side one of their 10 interchanges.

Haven't figured out what happens if the challenge comes after the 10th interchange has been made - perhaps a player has to drop off the field or something...

Needs some work but I think a strong enough disinsentive to keep challenges (and thus stoppages) to a minimum and even make them exciting when they happen.

 

[simostorm]

I think its fine the way it is. Humans always gunna make errors.
Slater penalty. and Fui FUi try being awarded when he was out.
1 for 1. Parra got the better end of the deal there. resulting try.
But its ok. gunna happen from time to time.

 

[dollyhands]

I think its fine the way it is. Humans always gunna make errors.
Slater penalty. and Fui FUi try being awarded when he was out.
1 for 1. Parra got the better end of the deal there. resulting try.
But its ok. gunna happen from time to time.

Farktard alert :crazy:

 

[myanonymoususername]

I think incorrect penalties have much less impact on the game than penalties which aren't given when warranted. The refs desire to keep penalty counts low and the game flowing actually rewards the teams who are good at pushing the limits in laying around in the ruck and with offside play. This actually runs counter to what the refs are trying to achieve.

Here's a novel idea, and it would help improve refs performances I think. Don't try to massage the game by ignoring penalties that should be awarded. Just referee to the rules, and don't try to interpret the rules depending on the situation. Just penalise when there should be a penalty, put the onus on the players to get out of the ruck, be onside and all the other things - don't have the refs coach them, just blow the penalty. The players will adapt soon enough unless they are really dumb. Who's fault is it if the penalty count is 25-20 ... not the ref's, the players.

At present the ref's are trying to achieve a style that they are failing at. Go back to basics and get them right, and make the players fit to that expectation. Penalise, don't coach them.

 

[Doggiesfan09]

Let's say the Fui/Slater incident was a complete balls up by the referees - which we now all know it was.

A challenge system, to be a coaches call, not a captains call would sort this out on the spot. No need to put a max on the challenges either - the coach should lose an interchange each time his challenge is dismissed. This will stop frivolous challenges.

As for expediency over accuracy - if that was the case we would not have the video ref now. NRL policy is accuracy over expediency in some very specific cases. A challenge rule would allow consistency for all rules & most situations in a match - not just high shots and some aspects of a try.

It would also help to have officials competent enough to announce a ruling - again something the NFL do flawlessly, while the NRL flounders around. Archer was so quick to blow the whistle he didn't even know what the penalty was for - this is from a bloke who called "2, play it" earlier in the match, only to let the tackled player get up and run again.

Grand Finals coming down to spurious, unexplained refereeing decisions and field goals - very rugby-like and worthy of exactly the same valid criticisms.

Challenge system i believe would be too hard to implement , what are the guidelines for challenges, can you challenge forward passes or is this still off limits even though it may be a blatant error. I think challenging a penalty would be impossible as what interpretation do you go off , the penalty on Slater may be deemed harsh but according to the ref MOI MOI was penalised for a leg pull or holding on to the legs too long not for a strip, who deems what is too long to lie around the ruck there is no set time in the rule book its up to the referee's interpretation.

If a challenge system was implemented i think it should only be on try scoring plays but then then there is no difference to going to the video ref,once again one ref says try , one says no try, who is right or wrong there is still going to be the same controversy no matter what system is put in place.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Challenge system is flawed because who would make the decision after the challenge is made? the refs. Refs will never admit they are wrong. Delusional f**kwits.