Questions for Bill Harrigan
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
The Who
Journey Man
This gobblegook answer highlights why the video ref is ruining the game. Without one the ref would have either awarded a try and said: it looked like a try to me. Or ruled a knock-on, saying it looked like a knock-on to me.
We might not agree on his decision but that would have been the end of it.
Video refs were brought in to get calls 100% right, yet they get so many wrong, even after numerous replays - and then give stupid reasons.
The whole system is flawed; they can only rule on certain things; at certain times; and in the case of a try can't take into consideration an error that may have happened on an earlier tackle.
It's proven that cameras don't help in cricket with disputed catches. Much more accurate to accept the ruling of the on-field ref.
We might not agree on his decision but that would have been the end of it.
Video refs were brought in to get calls 100% right, yet they get so many wrong, even after numerous replays - and then give stupid reasons.
The whole system is flawed; they can only rule on certain things; at certain times; and in the case of a try can't take into consideration an error that may have happened on an earlier tackle.
It's proven that cameras don't help in cricket with disputed catches. Much more accurate to accept the ruling of the on-field ref.
Rex
Bencher
You're right Brissie Kid. Hayne relayed Sutton's opinion that "it's gone forward into the Penrith player and then gone back".
So the official ruling relies on there being 100% absolute certainty that Foran has knocked the ball into Simmons and that therefore there was a gap between the ball and Simmons and then the ball bounced into Simmons - and Raper reckons he can determine this gap existed with certainty not by seeing any gap, but by the subsequent spin of the ball!
If this amazing new scientific discovery were true, we wouldn't need any ground level camera angles to show forcing of a ball for a try, we just need grandstand shots to tell us with absolute certainty - by the spin of the ball after release - whether a ball has bounced or been forced.
What is really worrying is if any other referees agree with Sutton and Raper. Another nail in the coffin of confidence in refereeing decisions. And a terrible advertisement for OPSM.
So the official ruling relies on there being 100% absolute certainty that Foran has knocked the ball into Simmons and that therefore there was a gap between the ball and Simmons and then the ball bounced into Simmons - and Raper reckons he can determine this gap existed with certainty not by seeing any gap, but by the subsequent spin of the ball!
If this amazing new scientific discovery were true, we wouldn't need any ground level camera angles to show forcing of a ball for a try, we just need grandstand shots to tell us with absolute certainty - by the spin of the ball after release - whether a ball has bounced or been forced.
What is really worrying is if any other referees agree with Sutton and Raper. Another nail in the coffin of confidence in refereeing decisions. And a terrible advertisement for OPSM.
Brissie Kid
Bencher
As they said on The Roast yersterday Rex we need people in the video box with "football experience".
Newton would be turning over in his grave at the complete and utter disregard of simple physics that these morons in pink exhibit. Not only are they above the laws of the game, they seem to think they are above the laws of physics. What a load of codswallop that attempted justification is.
Rex
Bencher
Put this question to talkin sport, but probably too late for their deadlines. Maybe the club might challenge the decision.
Questions for Bill Harrigan - Disallowed Manly try in 27th minute
Could you put this question to Bill Harrigan:
Shane Hayne can be heard saying that the Manly try after a Foran strip was disallowed because Sutton decided that the ball had "gone forward into the Penrith player (Simmons) and then gone back". This means that the video ref, Sutton, has somehow determined that there was a gap between the ball and Simmons and then the ball hit Simmons. The problem is that the video never shows any such gap, and indeed shows that there wasn't ever any gap. Every player knows that putting pressure on a ball can cause it to pop up in the opposite direction, with spin.
Stuart Raper has now given a very different and contradictory explanation to Sutton's. He says the spin of the ball proves that the ball was always travelling towards the opposition goal-line. http://admin.nrl.com/official-view-carne...fault.aspx The first problem with this explanation is that the ball landed a metre in front of Simmons, not behind him which would be the case if Raper's explanation held. The second problem with this explanation is that the spin of the ball does not indicate the direction of movement - they are two very different forces. The third problem with this explanation is that anyone can create this spin by simply putting pressure on the ball causing it to pop out in the opposite direction.
When players apply forward force onto a ball with the tackling arm, and the ball pops out, it would be ridiculous to conclude a knock on by the tackler because of a spin of the ball. For the same reason, Stuart Raper's conclusion is equally ludicrous.
Will Bill Harrigan provide a proper explanation for the decision or advise it was an incorrect call, especially given that benefit of any doubt goes to the attacking team?
Questions for Bill Harrigan - Disallowed Manly try in 27th minute
Could you put this question to Bill Harrigan:
Shane Hayne can be heard saying that the Manly try after a Foran strip was disallowed because Sutton decided that the ball had "gone forward into the Penrith player (Simmons) and then gone back". This means that the video ref, Sutton, has somehow determined that there was a gap between the ball and Simmons and then the ball hit Simmons. The problem is that the video never shows any such gap, and indeed shows that there wasn't ever any gap. Every player knows that putting pressure on a ball can cause it to pop up in the opposite direction, with spin.
Stuart Raper has now given a very different and contradictory explanation to Sutton's. He says the spin of the ball proves that the ball was always travelling towards the opposition goal-line. http://admin.nrl.com/official-view-carne...fault.aspx The first problem with this explanation is that the ball landed a metre in front of Simmons, not behind him which would be the case if Raper's explanation held. The second problem with this explanation is that the spin of the ball does not indicate the direction of movement - they are two very different forces. The third problem with this explanation is that anyone can create this spin by simply putting pressure on the ball causing it to pop out in the opposite direction.
When players apply forward force onto a ball with the tackling arm, and the ball pops out, it would be ridiculous to conclude a knock on by the tackler because of a spin of the ball. For the same reason, Stuart Raper's conclusion is equally ludicrous.
Will Bill Harrigan provide a proper explanation for the decision or advise it was an incorrect call, especially given that benefit of any doubt goes to the attacking team?
harrigan was just on talking sport & agreed with the call
MadMarcus
Toovey for NRL CEO
I think that Bill is trying to say is that Kieren was trying to rake the ball by pushing it towards Simmons' torso and that video ref could tell from 'the spin of the ball' that the ball would have travelled through Simmons' torso if Simmons were not there.
Of course, if the video ref and Bill can tell that then they are both very impressive physicists, their talents are seriously wasted at the NRL and it would be better for the whole of mankind if their massive scientific brains were put to use working at NASA.
The other problem is that based on my understanding of the rule book I still don't think that Bill's 'magic bullet' interpretation of the play constitutes a knock-on, and if it does who is going to be able to work it out when the geniuses Harrigan and Sutton are not in charge and the job is left to mere mortals with IQs of less than 200?
The alternative is that Bill is full of s**t and has decided to go down the Finch path of never admitting errors after having to make so many apologies in recent months.
If I were a betting man I would put my money on the latter.
Of course, if the video ref and Bill can tell that then they are both very impressive physicists, their talents are seriously wasted at the NRL and it would be better for the whole of mankind if their massive scientific brains were put to use working at NASA.
The other problem is that based on my understanding of the rule book I still don't think that Bill's 'magic bullet' interpretation of the play constitutes a knock-on, and if it does who is going to be able to work it out when the geniuses Harrigan and Sutton are not in charge and the job is left to mere mortals with IQs of less than 200?
The alternative is that Bill is full of s**t and has decided to go down the Finch path of never admitting errors after having to make so many apologies in recent months.
If I were a betting man I would put my money on the latter.
Rex
Bencher
And so the standard of refereeing drops another cog.
One tiny little problem with Bill's explanation is that Simmons' torso WAS there.
By Bill Harrigan's logic virtually any time a tackling player touches the ball at all, it should be considered a knock-on. Virtually every tackle should be zero tackle to the team in possession because without the attacker's hands and torso the defending team would have knocked the ball forward.
What an intellectual genius we have supervising our referees!
MadMarcus said:
One tiny little problem with Bill's explanation is that Simmons' torso WAS there.
By Bill Harrigan's logic virtually any time a tackling player touches the ball at all, it should be considered a knock-on. Virtually every tackle should be zero tackle to the team in possession because without the attacker's hands and torso the defending team would have knocked the ball forward.
What an intellectual genius we have supervising our referees!
Volley
Bencher
I notice a certain someone who drops the c bomb every third word never gets censored.
And anyone who understood what The Eagle said wouldn't be offended by it anyway. If you did, then you're a prude.
On topic, it's a waste of time questioning the referees. It's dirty at the top, and it filters all the way down.
And anyone who understood what The Eagle said wouldn't be offended by it anyway. If you did, then you're a prude.
On topic, it's a waste of time questioning the referees. It's dirty at the top, and it filters all the way down.
fLIP
UFO Hunter
If the video refs use the excuse that poor camera angles prevent the ability to acuratly tell a forward pass, how can these same camera angles be used to tell a forward knock on?
In my opinion the video ref should be used for grounding, in touch and other close disisions but nothing to do with whether a ball has had momentum in a certain direction for any reason.
In my opinion the video ref should be used for grounding, in touch and other close disisions but nothing to do with whether a ball has had momentum in a certain direction for any reason.
The Eagle said:
Lol not MWSE rules just taking some measure of control back. Hopefully people are mature enough to see where they might be doing something wrong and therefore make a few minor adjustments to the way they say things rather than carry on like a fool.
This site is here for everyone to enjoy not a select few
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 23 | 10 |
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 48 | 8 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 28 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 25 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 8 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 38 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 21 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 37 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -13 | 6 |
|
5 | 2 | 3 | -15 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -36 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -5 | 4 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -7 | 4 |
|
5 | 0 | 5 | -86 | 2 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 2 |
