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.
Nothing wrong with that try, if Billy had made contact with the referee then they could have disallowed the try, the fact he ran behind the referee has no bearing on the results. The ref should have gotten out of the way and it was his fault, but still a try
 
Daniel said:
Nothing wrong with that try, if Billy had made contact with the referee then they could have disallowed the try, the fact he ran behind the referee has no bearing on the results. The ref should have gotten out of the way and it was his fault, but still a try

The replay I saw of the incident showed contact btw Slater & the ref. Do I need glasses?
 
I am not sure of the Rugby league ruling on it, however in other sports like oz tag if the ball carrier makes contact with the referee the play is brought back to the point of contact. However I would say in Rugby league it would be more about deliberate contact, I mean the ref cant go anywhere and it is his fault for being in the way.
 
Daniel said:
I am not sure of the Rugby league ruling on it, however in other sports like oz tag if the ball carrier makes contact with the referee the play is brought back to the point of contact. However I would say in Rugby league it would be more about deliberate contact, I mean the ref cant go anywhere and it is his fault for being in the way.

I'm sure that Slater made contact with the Referee too Dan. As for the rules I did a bit of research for the ruling for the following reply to mickqld in this thread post:

http://forums.silvertails.net/Thread-Does-anyone-ever-shake-the-ref-s-hand?pid=437090#pid437090
 
Slater ran directly at the ref and barrelled into him pushing the ref over it should have been a penalty to the Titans.
 
Slater ran at the Referee and upper arm shoved past him. It may have only been light contact but it was still contact and play should have been stopped and either a scrum put down or if the Referee deemed that Slater made deliberate contact with him then a penalty should have been called against Slater.

If you watch the highlights video from about the 2:17 to 2:30 mark, you can watch the try and the contact from a couple of angles:

http://www.nrl.com/video/tabid/10959/contentid/476782/default.aspx
 
niccipops said:
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.

They've just reopened Nauru. Maybe Billy can go there ?
 
Harrigan says the 'try' that Croker scores off a bomb against 'Riff was a try because the video was "inconclusive". I must say I have only watched it once, in normal speed, and it seems obvious that Croker knocks the ball on. No try for mine, clearly.

So, if 'tries' are being awarded because the video is not definitive enough, surely this questions the very existance of a video ref.
 
The Who said:
Harrigan says the 'try' that Croker scores off a bomb against 'Riff was a try because the video was "inconclusive". I must say I have only watched it once, in normal speed, and it seems obvious that Croker knocks the ball on. No try for mine, clearly.

So, if 'tries' are being awarded because the video is not definitive enough, surely this questions the very existance of a video ref.

Well, I've been wondering this for a while, and wondering why the don't use those super fast or slow (not sure which it is!) cameras like they do on Mythbusters to slow everything down but it still be crystal clear.

And BOTD should go to the defending team. But that's a rant for another day!
 
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.


We could pay them in pints
 
TokyoEagle said:
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.


We could pay them in pints

My whole point is that the problem is two fold.

1. The video ref is making huge errors.
2. The video ref is seen as having an agenda. Ie. Evening out a game, bringing a team back into the contest, predetermined results etc.

By ensuring the video ref is separated from the emotion and the information about things like penalty counts and scorelines at least some of that perception of bias is removed.

Also I think if you have 5 guys separately coming up with a conclusion, then the aberrant outlier results would be diminished if not eliminated.
 
Rusty said:
TokyoEagle said:
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.


We could pay them in pints



My whole point is that the problem is two fold.

1. The video ref is making huge errors.
2. The video ref is seen as having an agenda. Ie. Evening out a game, bringing a team back into the contest, predetermined results etc.

By ensuring the video ref is separated from the emotion and the information about things like penalty counts and scorelines at least some of that perception of bias is removed.

Also I think if you have 5 guys separately coming up with a conclusion, then the aberrant outlier results would be diminished if not eliminated.



Rusty, i think it is a great idea with lots of merit. I love it.
 
From memory, Slater not only ran into the ref, but the ref then rebounded into defenders obstructing their tackle on Slater. Gobsmacked that they awarded the try. And gobsmacked that refs aren't ever allowed to change their decisions after blowing the whistle when they realise they have erred.

To fix the refereeing we need to first dump Harrigan, then dump the second referees, then dump the video referees. Video replays should only be allowed under an appeal system a la tennis. And the ref who made the decision needs to be the one who makes the decision on the appeal.

Enough of refs not being accountable for their errors.
 
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.

They do this in ice hockey.

Works well for them.

Except when there is a blackout in that town and therefore no games can get 'video reffed.'
 

Latest posts

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