1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why RL is mired in controversy

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by The Who, May 25, 2012.

  1. The Who

    The Who Well-Known Member

    7,292
    2,227
    Mona Vale
    Ratings:
    +4,841 / 103
    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.
     
  2. Ralphie

    Ralphie Well-Known Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    3,648
    489
    Bredbo
    Ratings:
    +2,093 / 231
    I agree, go back to one referee and ditch the video ref.
     
  3. bones

    bones Bones Knows Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    8,367
    5,100
    Ratings:
    +8,999 / 102
    Bill Harrigan is to blame. That's the way he likes it. He likes the controversy as it puts the referees in the spotlight.
     
  4. lsz

    lsz Well-Known Member Staff Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    6,619
    1,732
    Ratings:
    +3,648 / 66
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Frogz

    Frogz Don't mess with the goat, he has photos. Premium Member

    2,175
    647
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +1,392 / 36
    No benefit of any doubt...If its not 100% a try...with a hand only on the ball...its no try
     
  6. eagles2win

    eagles2win Well-Known Member

    4,963
    494
    Ratings:
    +494 / 0
    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
     
  7. MadMarcus

    MadMarcus Local Lunatic 2016 Tipping Competitor

    5,531
    2,485
    Ratings:
    +5,825 / 53
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. The Who

    The Who Well-Known Member

    7,292
    2,227
    Mona Vale
    Ratings:
    +4,841 / 103
    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?
     
  9. eagles2win

    eagles2win Well-Known Member

    4,963
    494
    Ratings:
    +494 / 0
    Two Ref's not a fan of, video ref's yes but they need to have HD tv in the boxes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Cameron

    Cameron Cambo Premium Member

    6,170
    458
    Redcliffe
    Ratings:
    +662 / 35
    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.
     
  11. CussCuss

    CussCuss Active Member

    204
    7
    Ratings:
    +15 / 1
    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.
     
  12. The Who

    The Who Well-Known Member

    7,292
    2,227
    Mona Vale
    Ratings:
    +4,841 / 103
    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.
     
  13. Eagle Eyed Cherry

    Eagle Eyed Cherry Member

    79
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0
    Craig Thompson IS innocent until he has been found guilty of the offence he has allegedly committed.
     
  14. The Who

    The Who Well-Known Member

    7,292
    2,227
    Mona Vale
    Ratings:
    +4,841 / 103
    G'day Ju-liar. Welcome to the Forum.
     
  15. CussCuss

    CussCuss Active Member

    204
    7
    Ratings:
    +15 / 1
    Its only brett who is innocent until proven guilty remember.

    Video refs have absolutely improved the game.
     
  16. mosto

    mosto Well-Known Member Premium Member

    1,233
    515
    Ratings:
    +992 / 10
    Pretty sure you could put this into Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start The Fire"
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Kiwi Eagle

    Kiwi Eagle Moderator Staff Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    14,488
    1,734
    Ratings:
    +2,425 / 31
    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
     
  18. Jatz Crackers

    Jatz Crackers Moderator Staff Member

    9,128
    1,149
    Ratings:
    +1,242 / 7
    I would like to see the Jason Taylor black eye from Fa'alogo in that controversy list. Just for balance & humour.
     
  19. The Who

    The Who Well-Known Member

    7,292
    2,227
    Mona Vale
    Ratings:
    +4,841 / 103
    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.
     
  20. The Eagle

    The Eagle Well-Known Member

    5,841
    480
    Ratings:
    +480 / 0
    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?
     

Share This Page