Yet more "Official View" rubbish

  • 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.
They should also crackdown on the following;
1.When an attacking player puts up a bomb near the try line, his players go out of their way to block the defending players putting pressure on the kicker.
2. Same as above put the difference being a field goal attempt.
3. When a bomb is in the air and the defending players run out of their way to block the attacking players and subsequently defending the receiver of the kick/bomb.
 
They should also crackdown on the following;
1.When an attacking player puts up a bomb near the try line, his players go out of their way to block the defending players putting pressure on the kicker.
2. Same as above put the difference being a field goal attempt.
3. When a bomb is in the air and the defending players run out of their way to block the attacking players and subsequently defending the receiver of the kick/bomb.
 
simon64 said:
WAMF said:
Harrigan is a douche.

That's a compliment in my book. Have you ever seen a more arrogant narcissistic w*nker ?

As Daniel said, the Stewart decision was touch and go. At least there was some contact between Matai and Tater-head. But Hall just fell over and wasn't even in the same postcode.

I can live with the error (because we still won). But the flat refusal to admit the error is just typical Harrigan.

If a controversial call goes against Manly, Harrigan's official view will always be that the correct decision was made. Wish Billy would go somewhere.
 
simon64 said:
WAMF said:
Harrigan is a douche.

That's a compliment in my book. Have you ever seen a more arrogant narcissistic w*nker ?

As Daniel said, the Stewart decision was touch and go. At least there was some contact between Matai and Tater-head. But Hall just fell over and wasn't even in the same postcode.

I can live with the error (because we still won). But the flat refusal to admit the error is just typical Harrigan.

If a controversial call goes against Manly, Harrigan's official view will always be that the correct decision was made. Wish Billy would go somewhere.
 
Daniel said:
This is the NSWRL rule book, I assume it is the same

OBSTRUCTION –



a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.

d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.

e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.

f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.

g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.
Thanks for the rule books everyone.
g) gives the refs ample discretion to allow a try and to use common sense. Was Hall really going to have any effect on that try?? Serious? My eyesight must be even worse than I thought.
 
Daniel said:
This is the NSWRL rule book, I assume it is the same

OBSTRUCTION –



a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.

d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.

e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.

f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.

g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.
Thanks for the rule books everyone.
g) gives the refs ample discretion to allow a try and to use common sense. Was Hall really going to have any effect on that try?? Serious? My eyesight must be even worse than I thought.
 
Well harrigoose said the reason was that manly ran 'at the defender' and this isn't allowed.

Nothing in those above rules say that.

Therefore: Scammed

Therefore: Ban!
 
Well harrigoose said the reason was that manly ran 'at the defender' and this isn't allowed.

Nothing in those above rules say that.

Therefore: Scammed

Therefore: Ban!
 
The Dogs send big men to stand before the advancing defensive line. The defending player then has to alter his line. Obstruction? I would have thought so, but I seem to be one of the few. Taylor was onto it a few weeks ago but the refs still let it go. Harrigan is a tool and should get the bullet. Apart from Gallop has anyone ever been moved on in the NRL? I would think that Schubert should follow Harrigan out the door.
 
The Dogs send big men to stand before the advancing defensive line. The defending player then has to alter his line. Obstruction? I would have thought so, but I seem to be one of the few. Taylor was onto it a few weeks ago but the refs still let it go. Harrigan is a tool and should get the bullet. Apart from Gallop has anyone ever been moved on in the NRL? I would think that Schubert should follow Harrigan out the door.
 
Interesting articles

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/why-the-refs-are-getting-roasted-20120811-2415a.html

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/its-time-to-screen-out-the-video-ref-20120811-24159.html
 
Having two refs on the park is like bringing in an expansion team. It will dilute an already thin talent pool.

There should be no excuse for the video ref. Mucking up decisions in the replay booth is inexcusable.
 
They should seriously use the bunker system where they throw 5 guys in a room at RL headquarters away from the game.

Don't let them know the score, or hear the fans. Don't let them know the penalty count or anything. Only show them the footage of the try in question and then get a majority decision and go with that.

Even better, use five guys in england without any connection to the clubs in the game to do the video stuff.
 
Rusty said:
They should seriously use the bunker system where they throw 5 guys in a room at RL headquarters away from the game.

Don't let them know the score, or hear the fans. Don't let them know the penalty count or anything. Only show them the footage of the try in question and then get a majority decision and go with that.

Even better, use five guys in england without any connection to the clubs in the game to do the video stuff.

Haven't you seen enough evidence that video coverage is not accurate, and that there are just as many dud decisions made now as there was when just one ref had the supreme authority? Again yesterday in the Canberra V 'Riff match there was a video ref howler. Having more people with opinions only lessens the chance of an accurate outcome. Suely we've all been on enough committees to know that.
 
solution is simple

1 ref on the field.
1 video ref
2 linesmen

Video ref gets 1 look from each angle and additional 2 looks at whicever angle he/she wants. So there is no more than 5 or so looks at it

Slow motion only allowed for 1 looks.

Anything else has to be viewed at speed. If it looks like a try, it's a try in my book and I would be happier with decisions made in real time on a limited amount of looks to be wrong than have a thousand looks and still get them wrong
 
Daniel said:
solution is simple

1 ref on the field.
1 video ref
2 linesmen

Video ref gets 1 look from each angle and additional 2 looks at whicever angle he/she wants. So there is no more than 5 or so looks at it

Slow motion only allowed for 1 looks.

Anything else has to be viewed at speed. If it looks like a try, it's a try in my book and I would be happier with decisions made in real time on a limited amount of looks to be wrong than have a thousand looks and still get them wrong

OK. But there are so many things the video ref can't rule on, such as forward passes and glaring mistakes that happen one tackle before a 'try'.
It's just so messy, time consuming, costly, frustrating and down to interpretation.
 
I think video refs should be able to rule on forward passes also. If they can review onside/offside, why not forward passes?
 
So I see in this weeks Official View no mention of the Slater "try" where he ran into the referee.

It's like Melbourne don't even exist.
 
Rusty said:
They should seriously use the bunker system where they throw 5 guys in a room at RL headquarters away from the game.

Don't let them know the score, or hear the fans. Don't let them know the penalty count or anything. Only show them the footage of the try in question and then get a majority decision and go with that.

Even better, use five guys in england without any connection to the clubs in the game to do the video stuff.
Indian call centre :idea:
 
mmmdl said:
So I see in this weeks Official View no mention of the Slater "try" where he ran into the referee.

It's like Melbourne don't even exist.

Yeah, Billy conveniently ignored all the hard ones this week.
 
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