Why RL is mired in controversy

  • 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
It used to be a simple game. One referee, with decisions made on the spot based on what the ref and the linesmen saw.
If it looked like a knock on that's how it was ruled, and the game moved on. We had a flow of action.
Not now. Ever since there was this unrealistic push to get every decision right by using technology and more on-field officials the game has been on a slippery slope. Now we have 'benefit of the doubt' rullings. That simply means "Hell, I don;t know, even with all this technology."
We have incidents decided upon in slow motion, not how the action took place. If my eye didn't see it then it didn't happen. Move on.
We have new rules written that complicated easy decisions. For example, who can reliably say that Farah deliberately kicked the ball from Inglis' hands? Was there intent, or simply him trying to make a tackle? All I know is that in real speed it looked an easy decision - Inglis dropped the ball. Knock on! Get on with the game.
We have 'tries' scored now when players don;t have control of the ball. The video refs just freeze a frame it to show there was some contact. And on it goes. More rules, more arguments.
The cost of video refs, and two refs, must amount to tens of millions each season. Has it stopped the controversy? We all know the answer to that.
Surely the NRL could use that money in a better way.
 
Bill Harrigan is to blame. That's the way he likes it. He likes the controversy as it puts the referees in the spotlight.
 
I would suggest a simple rule

If it takes more than 3 - 5 reviews the benefit of the doubt goes to the defending team and we move on
 
No benefit of any doubt...If its not 100% a try...with a hand only on the ball...its no try
 
Rugby league has always been mired in controversy.
Early in the piece the Kangaroos were scheduled to play the Wallabies. Souths vs Balmain GF was the opening act. Balmain players refused to play, Souths agreed but the day came Souths lined up kicked off and scored under the posts then the ref called the end of the game while the Balmain boys were outside protesting.
Bumper Farrell was accused of biting an ear of an opponent.
Darcy Lawler betting on games (so what you say, he was the ref that could effect the outcome of the game)
Ken Irvine whilst Captain of Norths took his team of the field due to some decisions.
Hartley's tackle counts
The class warfare that Roy Masters created during the real Silvertail years
Parra's flying v
Canterburys fiberglass shoulderpads
Terry Lambs high shot on Ellery Hanley
Terry Hill draft
Superleague war
Canberra over the salary cap
Tackle counts, forward passes
Forced mergers between in some cases traditional rivals
Canterbury over the salary cap and rape allegations
The Hoppa finger up bum
Melbourne over the salary cap
Origin - Inglis being a NSW player and that try

The truth is rugby league always has controversy - the thing is we as a sport thrive under it
 
Rule changes have been designed to give the refs more and more discretion. Instead of simply asking - Did it come of Inglis? Did it go forward? - the question has become - Did Farah deliberately strike at the ball? Was Inglis "playing at" the ball when it hit his forearm? The truth is there is no way of knowing either of these things unless you are Farah or Inglis.

The refs totally control the game these days. Maybe that is what they wanted all along.
 
eagles2win said:
Rugby league has always been mired in controversy.
The truth is rugby league always has controversy - the thing is we as a sport thrive under it

What we don't thrive on is the better team not winning. Can you honestly tell me video ref, and two refs, have improved decision-making?
 
The Who said:
eagles2win said:
Rugby league has always been mired in controversy.
The truth is rugby league always has controversy - the thing is we as a sport thrive under it

What we don't thrive on is the better team not winning. Can you honestly tell me video ref, and two refs, have improved decision-making?

Two Ref's not a fan of, video ref's yes but they need to have HD tv in the boxes.
 
Bones nailed it. Harrigan is the problem word is he has lost the support of a number of refs to the point Archer is talking about retiring.
 
People are absolutely kidding themselves if they think that there would be less contraversy and whinging if we just went on the decision of 1 ref. The HD replays would still be there and people would be even more angry at the refs who got it wrong more frequently, and they would.

The difference between now and then? More cameras with better quality, mistakes became more obvious so something was done to correct them, the video ref. Used to be just as many dodgy decisions, but noone could see that they were.
 
So you think video refs have improved the game?
You'd also believe Craig Thomson was innocent.
Video refs slow up the game, cause players to feign injury, frustrate people - particularly those who pay to get to the game because they can't see what's going on - are no more accurate, and cost a fortune in administration costs.
 
Eagle Eyed Cherry said:
The Who said:
So you think video refs have improved the game?
You'd also believe Craig Thomson was innocent.

Craig Thompson IS innocent until he has been found guilty of the offence he has allegedly committed.

G'day Ju-liar. Welcome to the Forum.
 
eagles2win said:
Rugby league has always been mired in controversy.
Early in the piece the Kangaroos were scheduled to play the Wallabies. Souths vs Balmain GF was the opening act. Balmain players refused to play, Souths agreed but the day came Souths lined up kicked off and scored under the posts then the ref called the end of the game while the Balmain boys were outside protesting.
Bumper Farrell was accused of biting an ear of an opponent.
Darcy Lawler betting on games (so what you say, he was the ref that could effect the outcome of the game)
Ken Irvine whilst Captain of Norths took his team of the field due to some decisions.
Hartley's tackle counts
The class warfare that Roy Masters created during the real Silvertail years
Parra's flying v
Canterburys fiberglass shoulderpads
Terry Lambs high shot on Ellery Hanley
Terry Hill draft
Superleague war
Canberra over the salary cap
Tackle counts, forward passes
Forced mergers between in some cases traditional rivals
Canterbury over the salary cap and rape allegations
The Hoppa finger up bum
Melbourne over the salary cap
Origin - Inglis being a NSW player and that try

The truth is rugby league always has controversy - the thing is we as a sport thrive under it

Pretty sure you could put this into Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start The Fire"
 
The Who said:
So you think video refs have improved the game?
You'd also believe Craig Thomson was innocent.
Video refs slow up the game, cause players to feign injury, frustrate people - particularly those who pay to get to the game because they can't see what's going on - are no more accurate, and cost a fortune in administration costs.

I think video refs have improved the game, no doubt at all about that.

Rule changes and interpretations are what has changed and where the issue comes from, not the video ref imo

If we look at it another way, remember the try year ago where 1 of the Walters was playing for Brisbane and bounced the ball from about a metre above the ground, and was given a try ? Imagine no video ref and that deciding the last minute of a grand final and the uproar about not having technology to decide it

Nothing is perfect, human nature dictates there will always be mistakes, but on try rulings, no doubt we get more right now than we used too, especially close to the dead ball line or sideline
 
Kiwi Eagle said:
Nothing is perfect, human nature dictates there will always be mistakes, but on try rulings, no doubt we get more right now than we used too, especially close to the dead ball line or sideline

There is plenty of doubt.
And the fact that video is only allowed to rule on certain things surely must tell you that it is far from perfect. So leave it up to the on field officials.
 
The Who said:
Eagle Eyed Cherry said:
The Who said:
So you think video refs have improved the game?
You'd also believe Craig Thomson was innocent.

Craig Thompson IS innocent until he has been found guilty of the offence he has allegedly committed.

G'day Ju-liar. Welcome to the Forum.

Hi Tony? How's it feel to lose the election because you're not even able to tie your own shoelaces with your lack of mental capacity?
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 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