Video refs are a joke

[mickqld]

Compare the rubbish try given to the queens last night when it was a double movement and a knock on just before halftime. Now have a look at a clear obstruction try given to the Storm and then a clear benefit of the doubt try denied to the chooks this arvo. I am sick to death of this video bull**** funny how it always seems to favour the NRL darling teams. The video clown had about a dozen goes at looking at the chooks try and then rules no try when he obviously had doubt which I thought meant benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. Anasta was blowing up delux and with good reason.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

The least surprising bit about that is Anasta blowing up.

 

[The Who]

I have been saying this ever since video refs were introduced. They don't improve the game; they create more controversy than they solve, and they slow down the game. They cost a lot of money.
Let's get back to the on-field refs making the calls in real time as they see fit. Yes they will make mistakes - but not the slow-motion ones the video refs now make.
Forgiving human error is palatable, but errors when it's a clown in the box brought in to reduce mistakes is unforgivable.

 

[Boozo]

What hope have they got when the supposed head of the refs (Hollywood Harrigan) made the greatest blooper of all by awarding THAT try to Gasnier a couple of seasons back. His punishment - appointed in charge of referees the following season. His disdain for Manly is obvious. He is cut from the same cloth as Kent, Kimmorley and half a hundred other Manly haters in the media spotlight.
Video ref mistakes are indefensible and I don't think I'm drawing too long a bow to say that some of them are biased at best and downright cheats at worst. You cop a much better deal if you wear red/white, black/gold, sky blue or purple. If you play in a maroon/white jersey then don't even bother hoping.

 

[Joey]

I don't think it's as simple as saying that if there is any doubt, it's a try, because then it becomes absurd - all sorts of no tries will be getting awarded.

Next week and the week after that there will be tries awarded benefit of the doubt that will be clearly a no try, it is what it is and clearly the NRL don't care, refs have goldfish memories as they do one thing one week and another thing the following week, no consistency whatsoever, it's bloody annoying.

 

[Captain Moondog]

One ref, two touchies. Sounds good to me.

 

[The Who]

Whatever idiot changed the rules from having to have control of the ball, to downward pressure, has caused so many 'tries' that it makes the game look silly. Benefit of the doubt is such a wide interpretation that we are getting dumb decisions.

 

[bob dylan]

I like the video refs and reckon they are doing a great job under extreme pressure.

Let's just hope they can keep up the good work.

 

[eagle-rock08]

We have the technology to have the video refs in a central location to adjudicate on games.

They don't need to be 'at the game' to do their job.

There could be a group of them in a room looking at all the games being played simultaneously. They could then call on others in contentious decisions.

At least this would take the pressure off them and allow them to receive input to their decisions.

It's not rocket science.

 

[The Who]

We have the technology to have the video refs in a central location to adjudicate on games.

They don't need to be 'at the game' to do their job.

There could be a group of them in a room looking at all the games being played simultaneously. They could then call on others in contentious decisions.

At least this would take the pressure off them and allow them to receive input to their decisions.

It's not rocket science.

I'm afraid that it does sound exactly like rocket science!
Why give the refs any powers at all? Let some higher being rule on everything.
Talk about complicating a simple game.

 

[Mals]

We have the technology to have the video refs in a central location to adjudicate on games.

They don't need to be 'at the game' to do their job.

There could be a group of them in a room looking at all the games being played simultaneously. They could then call on others in contentious decisions.

At least this would take the pressure off them and allow them to receive input to their decisions.

It's not rocket science.

I'm afraid that it does sound exactly like rocket science!
Why give the refs any powers at all? Let some higher being rule on everything.
Talk about complicating a simple game.

I say outsource the video refs to India. Plenty of call centre & IT jobs have gone off offshore so the NRL should follow the financial services sector's lead. Player agents should be located in India as well.

 

[manlyfan76]

Put a ref in each ingoal instead of the box.

 

[globaleagle]

We have the technology to have the video refs in a central location to adjudicate on games.

They don't need to be 'at the game' to do their job.

There could be a group of them in a room looking at all the games being played simultaneously. They could then call on others in contentious decisions.

At least this would take the pressure off them and allow them to receive input to their decisions.

It's not rocket science.

They do that in the nhl (you may have known that.)
Works fine there.

 

[DSM5]

I like the idea of video refs. The problem is the bod thing. If there is doubt, don't give it, full stop. That takes that bod out of the equation. And bring back the control issue when holding the ball. You can have a central body of a few people adjudging a try as the NHL in Canada/US do it when looking at contentious goals and it only takes seconds there. That takes the crowd out of the equation.
Harrigan is also a problem. He was an arrogant prick who snubbed his nose at problems on the field, and he's carried on this cavalier approach to problems on the field. I'd also like the club to provide us supporters with the reasons given to them by the officials when they question decisions taken by refs in the match review. I think as supporters we have that right to know.

 

[The Who]

I like the idea of video refs. The problem is the bod thing. If there is doubt, don't give it, full stop. That takes that bod out of the equation. And bring back the control issue when holding the ball. You can have a central body of a few people adjudging a try as the NHL in Canada/US do it when looking at contentious goals and it only takes seconds there. That takes the crowd out of the equation.
Harrigan is also a problem. He was an arrogant prick who snubbed his nose at problems on the field, and he's carried on this cavalier approach to problems on the field. I'd also like the club to provide us supporters with the reasons given to them by the officials when they question decisions taken by refs in the match review. I think as supporters we have that right to know.

But what about the fact they can't rule on forward passes; can't go back to a previous play even if there is an obvious breach; hold up play for endless replays while we fans sit idly by; that there is just as much controversy now than pre video refs? And if they are such a good idea why aren't they used in the reserve grade, Toyota Cup etc. (the answer is cost - they are simply not worth the huge outlay).

 

[Andrew..]

I like the idea of video refs. The problem is the bod thing. If there is doubt, don't give it, full stop. That takes that bod out of the equation. And bring back the control issue when holding the ball. You can have a central body of a few people adjudging a try as the NHL in Canada/US do it when looking at contentious goals and it only takes seconds there. That takes the crowd out of the equation.
Harrigan is also a problem. He was an arrogant prick who snubbed his nose at problems on the field, and he's carried on this cavalier approach to problems on the field. I'd also like the club to provide us supporters with the reasons given to them by the officials when they question decisions taken by refs in the match review. I think as supporters we have that right to know.

Speaking of Harrigan, did anyone else think that saying "he would of applauded" the send off of T-Rex....as a biased statement, or am I being a bit to precious.

 

[The Who]

If that's what he said it is certainly bad English!

 

[swoop]

They should be able to rule on forward passes, it's no different to the benefit of the doubt. I agree with DSM5 that if it's bod don't give it.

 

[Frogz]

They can judge on if a player is ahead of the kicker, so why not a forward pass....Also if no one can say 100% that its a try then its not...WE are rewarding "nearly was good enough" under this stupid rule...no more BOD

 

[mickqld]

There we go again. Another B.O.D decision that shouldnt have been given going to the home team NRL darling team the Tigers what a surprise. This is getting rediculous.