standard of refereeing

  • 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.

happy with standard of refereeing

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • No

    Votes: 32 97.0%

  • Total voters
    33
globaleagle said:
There's a game day chat?


lolololololwoooooo


At one point 1 commentator was saying 'do we have to send everything upstairs?" - at a reference to a vid review to determine a goal line drop out.


The other one was "well do you want to get it right, or do you want to let the game flow?"


A choice I never thought was mutually exclusive.

The first commentator was Warren Smith, the second was Greg Alexander. They both have good points (and like Smith, I couldn't work out why there were so many replays when the first clearly showed it was just going to be a drop out), the problem is finding a balance between getting it right and letting the game flow. Too often it goes the other way. Sometimes refs call some very soft penalties, while in the same game they let some things go (such as obvious forward passes) that should have been called.

As for the use of the video referee.....I still say that too many NRL refs rely on the video ref. Its like they are so afraid to make a judgement call for fear that they'll get crucified on video evidence, especially if it decides the outcome of a game.

Also, while on one hand I don't mind the try or no-try call when going to the video ref, what I hate is that those are the only options. There should be a third option of the on-field pinky telling the video ref that he didn't have a clear view so can't make a call either way, which leaves it up to the video ref. That would take away the pressure to have to find conclusive evidence to overrule the on-field decision....which have been wrong on numerous occasions as we've seen.
 
HoldenV8 said:
globaleagle said:
There's a game day chat?


lolololololwoooooo


At one point 1 commentator was saying 'do we have to send everything upstairs?" - at a reference to a vid review to determine a goal line drop out.


The other one was "well do you want to get it right, or do you want to let the game flow?"


A choice I never thought was mutually exclusive.

The first commentator was Warren Smith, the second was Greg Alexander. They both have good points (and like Smith, I couldn't work out why there were so many replays when the first clearly showed it was just going to be a drop out), the problem is finding a balance between getting it right and letting the game flow. Too often it goes the other way. Sometimes refs call some very soft penalties, while in the same game they let some things go (such as obvious forward passes) that should have been called.

As for the use of the video referee.....I still say that too many NRL refs rely on the video ref. Its like they are so afraid to make a judgement call for fear that they'll get crucified on video evidence, especially if it decides the outcome of a game.

Also, while on one hand I don't mind the try or no-try call when going to the video ref, what I hate is that those are the only options. There should be a third option of the on-field pinky telling the video ref that he didn't have a clear view so can't make a call either way, which leaves it up to the video ref. That would take away the pressure to have to find conclusive evidence to overrule the on-field decision....which have been wrong on numerous occasions as we've seen.

There is a rule in the book for this already. The ref is meant to rule a try if they were unable to see it. Something along the lines of "A rule can not be disallowed for being unsighted" or there abouts.

Therefore if the ref says "I couldn't see" therefore they should be ruling a try
 
Problem is the referees seem to only want to rule on the defenders every tackle. The offence can do what they like. The Dogs got rolled last weekend when Cummins just kept pinging them and in the end they got just 38% possession for the whole game & its no wonder they got flogged on the scoreboard.
 
Dan said:
HoldenV8 said:
globaleagle said:
There's a game day chat?


lolololololwoooooo


At one point 1 commentator was saying 'do we have to send everything upstairs?" - at a reference to a vid review to determine a goal line drop out.


The other one was "well do you want to get it right, or do you want to let the game flow?"


A choice I never thought was mutually exclusive.

The first commentator was Warren Smith, the second was Greg Alexander. They both have good points (and like Smith, I couldn't work out why there were so many replays when the first clearly showed it was just going to be a drop out), the problem is finding a balance between getting it right and letting the game flow. Too often it goes the other way. Sometimes refs call some very soft penalties, while in the same game they let some things go (such as obvious forward passes) that should have been called.

As for the use of the video referee.....I still say that too many NRL refs rely on the video ref. Its like they are so afraid to make a judgement call for fear that they'll get crucified on video evidence, especially if it decides the outcome of a game.

Also, while on one hand I don't mind the try or no-try call when going to the video ref, what I hate is that those are the only options. There should be a third option of the on-field pinky telling the video ref that he didn't have a clear view so can't make a call either way, which leaves it up to the video ref. That would take away the pressure to have to find conclusive evidence to overrule the on-field decision....which have been wrong on numerous occasions as we've seen.

There is a rule in the book for this already. The ref is meant to rule a try if they were unable to see it. Something along the lines of "A rule can not be disallowed for being unsighted" or there abouts.

Therefore if the ref says "I couldn't see" therefore they should be ruling a try

Yep.

Page 12 of the rule book.

SECTION 6
SCORING – TRIES AND GOALS


Notes:

Referee unsighted

The Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in
a position to see the grounding of the ball.
 
I don't think the refereeing standard is any worse than it has been in the last few seasons. It seems to have plateau'd right between abysmal and you have got to be fking joking.

I think they should set themselves a target for realistic improvement. How about a massive effort to reach sub standard next season.
 
Dan said:
Therefore if the ref says "I couldn't see" therefore they should be ruling a try
No the rule doesn't say that.
It just says they shouldn't disallow the try solely because they didn't see the grounding.
In other words, they have to make a call, if they think it was grounded even though they didn't see it hit the ground, call a try.
If they think it was held up or dropped, even though they didn't see for certain it wasn't grounded, call no try.
In the latter case they are legitimately calling no try because they thought it wasn't a try, not because they couldn't see the grounding.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom