Annesley's weakly excuses presser - 2023 edition!

[mickqld]

My main concern is with the video replays, when the ref sends it up to be judged by the bunker crew why do they show 4 or more angles on some try's but then only do a couple on others. Sure, for the obvious ones you need only one, but have seen just lately on contentious try's, amazingly only 2 when you know they should show more angles ?

Depends on which team. Manly tries seem to get scrutinised from 50 different angles to try and disallow yet the favoured few get 1 or 2 looks and it's try confirmed.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Well, if that's the case they need to show them as well, not just the ones we are allowed to see on TV...

This. I'm always amazed when commentators allude to these mysterious camera angles that the bunker has access to, but the viewers don't. What tripe is that? If you have an angle that is more revealing to support a contentious decision, then bl00dy show it to the viewers to help us understand certain decisions.

If I could put on my tin foil hat for a second...

(1) Are broadcasters wilfully creating controversy to up ratings (by not showing camera angles that clear up contentious decisions)? Or,
(2) Is the NRL suggesting the "extra camera angles" to give them leverage when officiating appears poor?

 

[Dan]

This. I'm always amazed when commentators allude to these mysterious camera angles that the bunker has access to, but the viewers don't. What tripe is that? If you have an angle that is more revealing to support a contentious decision, then bl00dy show it to the viewers to help us understand certain decisions.

If I could put on my tin foil hat for a second...

(1) Are broadcasters wilfully creating controversy to up ratings (by not showing camera angles that clear up contentious decisions)? Or,
(2) Is the NRL suggesting the "extra camera angles" to give them leverage when officiating appears poor?

Mostly what we see on the TV is what the bunker is seeing to make their decisions, however they are also viewing other shots and have a bunch of screens.
I have been in there with my step kids, there are a lot of big screens. The broadcast sometimes shows what the bunker is using to review the play, but not everything they are viewing, sometimes they have screens showing all angles at once.

You have to remember the bunker refs are constantly rewatching every play they thing they may need to watch. The TV stream just isn't capable of blasting out everything they are watching in there, but yes the broadcasters for too long have had too much control of the message that goes out

 

[HK_Eagle]

Mostly what we see on the TV is what the bunker is seeing to make their decisions, however they are also viewing other shots and have a bunch of screens.
I have been in there with my step kids, there are a lot of big screens. The broadcast sometimes shows what the bunker is using to review the play, but not everything they are viewing, sometimes they have screens showing all angles at once.

You have to remember the bunker refs are constantly rewatching every play they thing they may need to watch. The TV stream just isn't capable of blasting out everything they are watching in there, but yes the broadcasters for too long have had too much control of the message that goes out

Then, surely they could ease some of the viewer angst by simply releasing the pertinent camera shots/angles after they have reached a decision. We don't need to see everything, just the critical ones that swayed the decision.

 

[Dan]

Then, surely they could ease some of the viewer angst by simply releasing the pertinent camera shots/angles after they have reached a decision. We don't need to see everything, just the critical ones that swayed the decision.

For the most part we do, but also, then they will get told that we show too many video's and to just get on with it. It's a fine line. They make their calls and move on. We see the camera angles they use, we just sometimes see if differently.

In my mind this is probably the last thing they need to worry about and fix at this stage, the bunker works, kind of. However we still have a lot of **** calls going about

 

[Will on the hill]

Mostly what we see on the TV is what the bunker is seeing to make their decisions, however they are also viewing other shots and have a bunch of screens.
I have been in there with my step kids, there are a lot of big screens. The broadcast sometimes shows what the bunker is using to review the play, but not everything they are viewing, sometimes they have screens showing all angles at once.

You have to remember the bunker refs are constantly rewatching every play they thing they may need to watch. The TV stream just isn't capable of blasting out everything they are watching in there, but yes the broadcasters for too long have had too much control of the message that goes out

The all angles at once thing would be critical to making quick decisions. I'd love to see it on a broadcast but it'd probably look like a dogs breakfast on a single screen. Maybe they could put together something similar to show controversial calls post game. It would at least give insight to us plebs around what the VR is working with.

 

[Seagles68]

That looks like math...

My head hurts.

Or grounds for sexual harassment. So there were 34 players, 1 ref ...... and then 2 touchies.

 

[Dan]

The all angles at once thing would be critical to making quick decisions. I'd love to see it on a broadcast but it'd probably look like a dogs breakfast on a single screen. Maybe they could put together something similar to show controversial calls post game. It would at least give insight to us plebs around what the VR is working with.

It actually would be entertaining to have an experience like that, but you are right it would look stupid on a standard screen. If you could tap into it like sport ears (Sport eyes) and feed it to your own rig it could be actually an interesting concept.

I also like the idea of the package it all up but theres also the "negative press" kind of thing when we have a weekly slot for Anal-sleigh to come out and tell us excuses, far remove from the game so people have time to sleep it off. We all know its lip service but its better to hear in on a Tuesday than 20 minutes after the end of the game

 

[mickqld]

Mostly what we see on the TV is what the bunker is seeing to make their decisions, however they are also viewing other shots and have a bunch of screens.
I have been in there with my step kids, there are a lot of big screens. The broadcast sometimes shows what the bunker is using to review the play, but not everything they are viewing, sometimes they have screens showing all angles at once.

You have to remember the bunker refs are constantly rewatching every play they thing they may need to watch. The TV stream just isn't capable of blasting out everything they are watching in there, but yes the broadcasters for too long have had too much control of the message that goes out

Yeah well I'm still yet to see any 100% proof that Fifita got that ball to the in goal grass for a try. It was inconclusive and the ref said no try so it should have stood as no try. Bullsht bunker clowns.

 

[Will on the hill]

It actually would be entertaining to have an experience like that, but you are right it would look stupid on a standard screen. If you could tap into it like sport ears (Sport eyes) and feed it to your own rig it could be actually an interesting concept.

I also like the idea of the package it all up but theres also the "negative press" kind of thing when we have a weekly slot for Anal-sleigh to come out and tell us excuses, far remove from the game so people have time to sleep it off. We all know its lip service but its better to hear in on a Tuesday than 20 minutes after the end of the game

Do you remember roughly how many angles they were viewing at one time? I'd hazard a guess at 10.

 

[Dan]

Yeah well I'm still yet to see any 100% proof that Fifita got that ball to the in goal grass for a try. It was inconclusive and the ref said no try so it should have stood as no try. Bullsht bunker clowns.

come on man, let it go. He scored, if that were manly I would have been 100% behind the fact it touched grass. They aren't making these calls based on a Kogan HD TV but instead UHD with UHD streams. Pretty safe to say there was grass.

We lost, we couldn't hold the ball, Tipoluwhatever is a lighter version of Jorge and doesn't know when to rush up, when to turn, how to tackle his man and harper can't defend either.

You cough the ball up as much as we did and forget about tackling the results will always be the same. I am not blaming anything on the refs. We weren't good enough on the day.

As a club we have started to accept mediocrity and look for any excuse besides it being our fault. This team has a few good players and a few with massive hearts, but it also has plenty of pea hearts too. Manly is most successful when every player is in it together and playing toward the same thing, the same idea and with the same passion. Even our star player is questioned because of injuries and is doubting himself, that is not a recipe for a premiership, 2023 won't be our year and I fear our year won't come about until we shrug the shackles we have put on ourselves

 

[Dan]

Do you remember roughly how many angles they were viewing at one time? I'd hazard a guess at 10.

My kid snuck a few photos I think. I will see if he still has them but trust me, gone are the days of two blokes sitting around a 20 inch fuzzy screen making calls

 

[Dan]

Do you remember roughly how many angles they were viewing at one time? I'd hazard a guess at 10.

When it started on their personal big screens they had 4 angles at once, not sure what it is now, it looks a bit difference to their 2016 promos

 

[rj90]

Regarding the penalty on Keppie for pushing Boyd when kicking.

"I'll be the first to admit, there was not a lot in the push. But was the push necessary?'.

Probably not necessary. Definitely not worth a penalty either.

 

[globaleagle]

After a major sponsor of the Warriors said the refs were cheating, predictably this week (weak) was going to be about that comment.

"Decision making can be questioned but their integrity cannot be attacked"

Graham Annesley discusses NRL referee integrity and offers a stern response to criticism from the weekend

www.nrl.com

The comment was walked backed (probably due to not wanting to waste time with law suits and avoiding punishing the warriors) but claims of unconscious bias was reinforced with the welcoming of any investigation based on video evidence.

Again, predictable the powers at be all screamed woe, tore out their hair, mumbled rhubarb rhubarb at the mere mention officials "intoddgrity" could be anything than 100 percent honest and pure.

Many officials and judges throughout time have been known to be less than honest. Even if the nrl want to claim the high road, the question should be asked what checks and balances does the HQ have in place to ensure the intoddgrity of the officials?

All they tell us is "They are referees and by definition, they are totally 100 percent honest and it's a terrible terrible thing to say otherwise."

Interestingly the Nrl has a salary cap 'office' and the only time they find breaches is when teams self report or the nrl go on a witch hunt (ala greensludge and manly).

Wyatt Earp - yes that Earp was little known until he judged a boxing match and rigged it,
Boxing judges...cough cough,
the occasional European football ref,
The ice skating Olympic judges who got busted colluding,
the ref in the womens ice hockey gold medal match (usa v canada),
(shame hayne)
A nhl hockey ref caught on the mic saying he desperately wanted any reason to give a certain team a penalty..
and so on..

The Nrl say "no attacking the integrity of the refs".
Ok, I can see the reasons, no one would want to be a ref (yeah but if they're corrupt why would they care?) and also that's all the media would be reporting on week after week, but again, what checks and balances does the nrl have in place to prevent:
Cheating,
Unconscious bias, or even,
Pressure from 'shady' gambling identities to ensure a certain result. This one helps protect normally honest refs from the nightmare of having, say, loved ones threatened.

When Annesley disingenuously states that we can "question the refs decisions but not their intoddgrity" we've seen week after week his reply:

"Players make mistakes tooooooo", completely ignoring (and not being further questioned by the lame duck reporters) the issue that it's the players playing the game and they are held a lot more accountable than the refs. Additionally, it's not correct to compare players actions and referees actions.

So, before the coffee wears out, if you don't want the cheating refs to be called cheats, let us know what protocols you have in place for ensure the "Integrity" of the game.



(meh, what do I know?)

 

[Uk eagle]

That analogy would work if the players made as many mistakes in proportion to the mistakes the refs make.

So, 34 players per game vs 1 ref & 2 touchies is a ratio of 34:3.

I doubt the players are making 11 mistakes for every 1 made by the ref & touchies.

And your analogy is somewhat flawed too. The ref and touchies are involved in every single play (supposedly). Only 1 or 2 attackers and 1 or 2 defenders are in a position to make a mistake for each play (sometimes more sometimes fewer).

 

[47MVEagle]

And your analogy is somewhat flawed too. The ref and touchies are involved in every single play (supposedly). Only 1 or 2 attackers and 1 or 2 defenders are in a position to make a mistake for each play (sometimes more sometimes fewer).

I agree, there are more variables in the equation, but I do question that the touchies are involved in every play , most of the time they do nothing 😂

 

[BOZO]

Refs , Coaches or any other persons excuses

Are totally uninspiring , unstimulating , deflating , lacklustre

and as Useless as tits on a Bull

 

[The Who]

The rules governing the involvement of The Bunker are so flawed that it has created greater confusion than ever.
Blind Freddy can see a rule breach but unless it happens on the play that results in a 'try' then the Bunker can't get involved . . yet they can review other prior incidents and intervene on matters they regard as illegal play. Madness.
Plus, they can rule on an offside but not an obvious forward pass (yes, I understand about momentum as should The Bunker).

 

[north coast eagle]

NRL are posturing, they have no intension of going to court, it would mean scrutiny of their relationship with the gambling industry.