Ref Bias

[manlyfan76]

Hahaha!

 

[MissKate]

killer needs to be more selective. Although most 50/50

How come the media don't go on about thurston, burgess, ennis etc, they are all way worse than Jamie plus most of them actually abuse the refs and get away with it. I actually think Jamie is quite contained in his approach to the refs, I certainly wouldn't be quite as polite as he is.

 

[Brissie Kid]

What's Lyon supposed to do when he is correct & the ref is in error? Just cop it over & over?

 

[DSM5]

Strange that the Refs repeatedly told the goons to get onside. Why not penalize? I've said it long and loud that there is a psychological test that exposes bias and also unconscious bias. As we are all well aware, bias does exist. One shouldn't expect the referees to acknowledge bias, even if they realized that they were biased, however the unconscious bias is the real concern. I agree with posters here that we were responsible for many of the problems in the second half of the game, but from where I stood, the goons were offside for much of the second half, and forward passes in their rushing moves were not penalized. The penalty count means nothing unless one analysis when the penalties are given. Obviously a a penalty on tackle one is not as damaging as one on tackle four or five. And really to take the try from Jorge, when his opposite just stood there and made no attempt to tackle, for a minor bump by Tom, which didn't interfere with the play, was Horsehead at his most biased. The club should insist that the NRL have the refs take the bias test. .

 

[manlyfan76]

I'm sure in the not too distant future a coach will use a computer programme to grid the field and show how particular refs keep one side back only 7-8m and the other back 10 m. You could also compile evidence about how long players are alowed to hold down longer in the tackle. You can't argue with facts so get the facts.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Strange that the Refs repeatedly told the goons to get onside. Why not penalize? I've said it long and loud that there is a psychological test that exposes bias and also unconscious bias. As we are all well aware, bias does exist. One shouldn't expect the referees to acknowledge bias, even if they realized that they were biased, however the unconscious bias is the real concern. I agree with posters here that we were responsible for many of the problems in the second half of the game, but from where I stood, the goons were offside for much of the second half, and forward passes in their rushing moves were not penalized. The penalty count means nothing unless one analysis when the penalties are given. Obviously a a penalty on tackle one is not as damaging as one on tackle four or five. And really to take the try from Jorge, when his opposite just stood there and made no attempt to tackle, for a minor bump by Tom, which didn't interfere with the play, was Horsehead at his most biased. The club should insist that the NRL have the refs take the bias test. .

Is that like a Lie Detector test DSM??

If so bring it on AND QUICKLY

 

[Duff]

What's the name of the test DSM5?
It would certainly be an interesting one for the workplace as well.

I wonder if the NRL has gone down the psychological analysis route with refs or if they're just happy that someone wants to do it in the first place and that some of those are "good" enough to keep up. Maybe expecting more than this is a bridge too far.

 

[Bradza]

What was the go last night with the refs yelling out held as soon as we started pushing a bloke back even if his feet were still in contact with the ground? I noticed at least three occasions and it hasn't stood out to me before. Manly likes doing this especially in the opposition quarter but there seemed to be a new interpretation last night, but only against us.

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

It shows how incompetent they are where at least twice Jamie was told "I didn't see it". There are 4 of them there looking at it !! These were for the lost ball in the tackle before a try, and also when Foran was taken out trying to regather a chargedown

 

[Stevo]

On the upside, if we lose the penalty count vs the Roosters we know we have a problem. They are even more penalized then us!

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I wouldn't want their job (Refs), they cop it from the fans, they cop it from the players, they cop it from the captains, they cop it from the Media...their mistakes shown for all to see.

No thanks, I'll stick to being a fan who hates the pink cheating bastards!!

 

[lismore_fan]

A touchie gets $30 000 a season.
They only come in when there's a blue and the ref stops play....,except for Snake when he raises an elbow.

Don't know what a ref makes but it'd be plenty!

 

[StuBoot]

You know that the men in pink had a shocker when Tunksie agrees with most of us here. He's brought it up a few times this arvo that the smaller home ground crowds are influencing the refs into decisions.

 

[Phantar]

Not always in favour of the home side, as we witnessed at Brookvale two Fridays ago.

 

[dowdz]

killer needs to be more selective. Although most 50/50

How come the media don't go on about thurston, burgess, ennis etc, they are all way worse than Jamie plus most of them actually abuse the refs and get away with it. I actually think Jamie is quite contained in his approach to the refs, I certainly wouldn't be quite as polite as he is.

Well said and a good point. People just don't like us.

 

[Jono]

Whats that know? 2 or 3 weeks in a row we have been copping it really bad by the refs?

3 weeks. The common link? Jared Maxwell

 

[globaleagle]

Strange that the Refs repeatedly told the goons to get onside. Why not penalize? I've said it long and loud that there is a psychological test that exposes bias and also unconscious bias.

As we are all well aware, bias does exist. One shouldn't expect the referees to acknowledge bias, even if they realized that they were biased, however the unconscious bias is the real concern. The club should insist that the NRL have the refs take the bias test. .

I was just reading an article from a Stanford law review which showed that Judges rule based on certain influences - not just the law.

For example, if you want to be granted parole....best hope that the Judge has eaten, and is female as your chances are better.

So if a hungry male judge can scupper your parole chances, and every judge would claim they rule solely on the letter of the law without bias, then what hope do we have of ref's and touchies being unbiased? None.

The article also touches on the 'humanity' side of bias (as said by dms5) that upbringing, early influences, background, etc - basically being human will cause different interpretations of the same point of law.

So if it is unavoidable that ref's will be biased (as much as they claim they aren't) the best we can hope for is that they stop being so crap at what they do.

 

[Jethro]

Strange that the Refs repeatedly told the goons to get onside. Why not penalize? I've said it long and loud that there is a psychological test that exposes bias and also unconscious bias.

As we are all well aware, bias does exist. One shouldn't expect the referees to acknowledge bias, even if they realized that they were biased, however the unconscious bias is the real concern. The club should insist that the NRL have the refs take the bias test. .

I was just reading an article from a Stanford law review which showed that Judges rule based on certain influences - not just the law.

For example, if you want to be granted parole....best hope that the Judge has eaten, and is female as your chances are better.

So if a hungry male judge can scupper your parole chances, and every judge would claim they rule solely on the letter of the law without bias, then what hope do we have of ref's and touchies being unbiased? None.

The article also touches on the 'humanity' side of bias (as said by dms5) that upbringing, early influences, background, etc - basically being human will cause different interpretations of the same point of law.

So if it is unavoidable that ref's will be biased (as much as they claim they aren't) the best we can hope for is that they stop being so crap at what they do.

So the answer then is to get more NRL Referees who grew up in the Manly-Warringah area and supported the Sea Eagles

 

[Shoe1]

Strange that the Refs repeatedly told the goons to get onside. Why not penalize? I've said it long and loud that there is a psychological test that exposes bias and also unconscious bias.

As we are all well aware, bias does exist. One shouldn't expect the referees to acknowledge bias, even if they realized that they were biased, however the unconscious bias is the real concern. The club should insist that the NRL have the refs take the bias test. .

I was just reading an article from a Stanford law review which showed that Judges rule based on certain influences - not just the law.

For example, if you want to be granted parole....best hope that the Judge has eaten, and is female as your chances are better.

So if a hungry male judge can scupper your parole chances, and every judge would claim they rule solely on the letter of the law without bias, then what hope do we have of ref's and touchies being unbiased? None.

The article also touches on the 'humanity' side of bias (as said by dms5) that upbringing, early influences, background, etc - basically being human will cause different interpretations of the same point of law.

So if it is unavoidable that ref's will be biased (as much as they claim they aren't) the best we can hope for is that they stop being so crap at what they do.

You're telling me the Stanford Law Review article authors did a survey of how hungry judges were prior to decisions? Or they had observers in the judges homes monitoring breakfast, and observers in the dining room following the lunch adjournment?

 

[bones]

On the upside, if we lose the penalty count vs the Roosters we know we have a problem. They are even more penalized then us!

Most of the penalties against them are for fowl play