different rules for different teams?

[Dan]

He was talking about a question asked by the warriors about grabbing at the arm of the player

 

[Dan]

He was talking about a question asked by the warriors about grabbing at the arm of the player

 

[Pablo]

In the old days if you slipped or ducked into a tackle and got caught high it was bad luck. An accident so play the ball and get on with it.
This current obsession with any form of contact with the head being a penalty no matter what lead to the contact is a joke. Why does it HAVE to be a penalty? The refs always says " I know, but you made contact with the head." I just don't get why there can't be accidental contact with the head. Play on.

Won't be long until the likes of bellyache see it as an opportunity to gain an advantage. Desperate for a penalty boys........ Keep your heads low and try your luck.

 

[Pablo]

In the old days if you slipped or ducked into a tackle and got caught high it was bad luck. An accident so play the ball and get on with it.
This current obsession with any form of contact with the head being a penalty no matter what lead to the contact is a joke. Why does it HAVE to be a penalty? The refs always says " I know, but you made contact with the head." I just don't get why there can't be accidental contact with the head. Play on.

Won't be long until the likes of bellyache see it as an opportunity to gain an advantage. Desperate for a penalty boys........ Keep your heads low and try your luck.

 

[Rex]

The incident that best showed the ref had no idea was when he prematurely called a penalty before checking whether Wolfie had scored.

Then he changed his mind and called for a video decision on the try.

Then he changed his mind again and said no video referral.

Dump the hopeless two ref system and get some accountability back into refereeing.

He didn't change his mind on going upstairs, it was pointed out to him that he could not go to the video ref. once he had blown penalty the play after is moot

Yes Dan - that IS changing his mind!

That a referee has the whistle on a hair trigger like that shows he is emotively reacting rather than coolly considering what is in front of him. That is reason enough to dump him until that flaw is fixed.

His emotional hair-trigger reaction meant he got it wrong in not considering whether Wolfie had scored, and he got it wrong in not giving himself time to consider a penalty try. Without the high shot and Wolfie scores - guaranteed. It looked to me like he scored anyway. If that's not a penalty try, then when can there EVER be one?

The ref realised he stuffed up and instructed it to go upstairs. Then he was told he couldn't do that and he changed his decision again. That the referees are instructed they can't change a clearly wrong decision is ludicrous and shows the lack of leadership and common sense of Harrigan and co.

The argument that Wolfie scored after the whistle is simplistic and nonsensical. If it was after the whictle it was a mere split micro-second and the players didn't change their actions. It's like when a tennis player didn't have an effective play at the shot then a wrong call before the ball passes him is irrelevant.

The referee is there to use judgement to give the fairest and most appropriate result in the circumstances and all things considered, there should have been only one outcome. TRY!

Either you ask referees to use judgement or you ask them to be mindless rule enforcers. To jump to the second conclusion is nonsensical as it belies the fact that every moment the referees need to use judgement in deciding which interpretations are important and which rules they will enforce.

 

[Rex]

The incident that best showed the ref had no idea was when he prematurely called a penalty before checking whether Wolfie had scored.

Then he changed his mind and called for a video decision on the try.

Then he changed his mind again and said no video referral.

Dump the hopeless two ref system and get some accountability back into refereeing.

He didn't change his mind on going upstairs, it was pointed out to him that he could not go to the video ref. once he had blown penalty the play after is moot

Yes Dan - that IS changing his mind!

That a referee has the whistle on a hair trigger like that shows he is emotively reacting rather than coolly considering what is in front of him. That is reason enough to dump him until that flaw is fixed.

His emotional hair-trigger reaction meant he got it wrong in not considering whether Wolfie had scored, and he got it wrong in not giving himself time to consider a penalty try. Without the high shot and Wolfie scores - guaranteed. It looked to me like he scored anyway. If that's not a penalty try, then when can there EVER be one?

The ref realised he stuffed up and instructed it to go upstairs. Then he was told he couldn't do that and he changed his decision again. That the referees are instructed they can't change a clearly wrong decision is ludicrous and shows the lack of leadership and common sense of Harrigan and co.

The argument that Wolfie scored after the whistle is simplistic and nonsensical. If it was after the whictle it was a mere split micro-second and the players didn't change their actions. It's like when a tennis player didn't have an effective play at the shot then a wrong call before the ball passes him is irrelevant.

The referee is there to use judgement to give the fairest and most appropriate result in the circumstances and all things considered, there should have been only one outcome. TRY!

Either you ask referees to use judgement or you ask them to be mindless rule enforcers. To jump to the second conclusion is nonsensical as it belies the fact that every moment the referees need to use judgement in deciding which interpretations are important and which rules they will enforce.

 

[ManlyBacker]

In the old days if you slipped or ducked into a tackle and got caught high it was bad luck. An accident so play the ball and get on with it.
This current obsession with any form of contact with the head being a penalty no matter what lead to the contact is a joke. Why does it HAVE to be a penalty? The refs always says " I know, but you made contact with the head." I just don't get why there can't be accidental contact with the head. Play on.

Exactly right Pablo. If it is intentional like GI then a clear penalty. If they go in hard with a swinging arm and it collects head then penalty. If it looks like any normal tackle and a player slips into it then play on. Not rocket surgery.

 

[ManlyBacker]

In the old days if you slipped or ducked into a tackle and got caught high it was bad luck. An accident so play the ball and get on with it.
This current obsession with any form of contact with the head being a penalty no matter what lead to the contact is a joke. Why does it HAVE to be a penalty? The refs always says " I know, but you made contact with the head." I just don't get why there can't be accidental contact with the head. Play on.

Exactly right Pablo. If it is intentional like GI then a clear penalty. If they go in hard with a swinging arm and it collects head then penalty. If it looks like any normal tackle and a player slips into it then play on. Not rocket surgery.