Ridiculous

[Alan]

Just thinking that the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in sport, professional or amateur, is the sight of a referee giving a try that he knows for certain was not a try. It defies any logical explanation, and goes to the core of, what is a referee?

I'm not talking about being on the take here, I'm talking about the idiotic restrictions of the video referral system.

 

[The Who]

It's been a recurring theme on this forum for the past five years.
You either give video refs the power to make rullings on every aspect of the game - or you get rid of them.

 

[maxta]

Its hard to digest the foward pass rule??
The game imo was 95% dead by the time the Mutts scored that last try on Friday, but when its THAT blatent & not allowed to be ruled on, its a recipe for disaster....it happened in last years decider & will happen again.
Just hope it isn't a deciding factor again...disgraceful!!

 

[Frogz]

After watching the constant reviews by the video refs over the weekend, I now firmly are of the belief that they must use the video ref a certain number of times to get the KFC add in....Some of the referrals were absolute bullsh1t.

 

[Shoe1]

The inconsistency of when they ask for a video ruling kills me. I can't remember a game where the refs and touchies made decisions only to be overruled as much as fri nite. Dropouts, feeds etc.

 

[RiverEagle]

The refereeing in the Rabbids/Shytans tonight is as pedantic and random as I've seen in some time.

Including the vidiot's when needed.

It's a farce thus far and if they do or don't gift the Rabbids this one, it's already one of the worst games this season.

Only positive is the Rabbids look very ordinary as far as the finals go.

 

[Brissie Kid]

They can't rule on forward passes (which is I agree stupid) but they can rule a player receiving the ball being in an offside position. Same as they do with a kick chase replay. That's the smother reason the video ref should give if there is a blatant forward pass on the replay.

That last Dogs try should never have been awarded due to the "down town rule" as that Dogs forward who got the ball was offside at the play the ball. That's where the offence occurred and what happened after it was irrelevant. Manly should have got a penalty.

 

[Killer03]

The inconsistency of when they ask for a video ruling kills me. I can't remember a game where the refs and touchies made decisions only to be overruled as much as fri nite. Dropouts, feeds etc.

That's a good point, what is the rule there now?? There's been games where the decision has been shown to be wrong, but they don't overturn it, and in others they do??

I don't really care either way, but consistency please NRL. It just seems so ad hoc at times that the fans get the poops!

 

[Snake]

The problem is a result of the constantly changing rule book, and the revolving door of referee bosses we've had over the last 4 years. It seems as soon as the Daily Telegraph pens an article criticising the NRL, they take hasty reactionary measures and band aid the problem with short sighted thinking.

The game survived for 90 years without all this nonsense. Things have gotten out of control. Rugby League is a simply game requiring a simple rule book, with simple interpretations. The sooner the Daily Telegraph and all the "do gooders" accept that it's a physical game with a human element, the better. You take the good with the bad and get on with it! Instead, we can't have bad anymore, so we chase our tail instead until we're left with nothing.

 

[Killer03]

The problem is a result of the constantly changing rule book, and the revolving door of referee bosses we've had over the last 4 years. It seems as soon as the Daily Telegraph pens an article criticising the NRL, they take hasty reactionary measures and band aid the problem with short sighted thinking.

The game survived for 90 years without all this nonsense. Things have gotten out of control. Rugby League is a simply game requiring a simple rule book, with simple interpretations. The sooner the Daily Telegraph and all the do gooders accept that it's a physical game with a human element the better. You take the good with the bad and get on with it! Instead, we can't have bad anymore, so we just chase our tail instead until we're left with nothing.

1000% correct Snake. What game actually changes rules mid season??? Remember last year (or maybe the year before), we had the black and white obstructions for about 6 weeks and then it was changed mid season......WTF? We bring in the no-punch rule.....mid season.

 

[Pablo]

They need to introduce the 'howler' rule and get some consistency.
Video refs given the power to overturn a clear cut wrong decision by on field officials. Im not talking about 50 50 calls like hand in the ruck vs poor ball handling or a pass floating forward vs thrown slightly forward. But situations like Friday night when a try was awarded even though everyone saw the 2 metre forward pass on replay.
At the moment they pick and choose when to get involved, namely with contentious 20 metre restart or drop out calls.

 

[Dan]

The blanket "cant rule on a forward pass" just seems stupid, it should be "cant be asked to judge a marginal forward pass, however if clear forward pass is seen, then the correct ruling should be applied"

That way, the grandfinal pass probably wouldn't be judged as it was too touch and go, but the one on Friday was clearly forward and should be pulled up

 

[simon64]

The blanket "cant rule on a forward pass" just seems stupid, it should be "cant be asked to judge a marginal forward pass, however if clear forward pass is seen, then the correct ruling should be applied"

That way, the grandfinal pass probably wouldn't be judged as it was too touch and go, but the one on Friday was clearly forward and should be pulled up

I've banged on about this for an eternity Dan.

The goal should always be to get the rulings right as often as possible. Case in point; the touch off Jennings in the GF just before half time. And of course, Friday night's forward pass that was about 4 metres forward.

What frustrates me more is when the vidiots let this stuff go but rule a strip on Hiku when the guy was just trying to make a tackle.

Common sense seems to play no part in any ruling.

 

[Alan]

They need to introduce the 'howler' rule and get some consistency.
Video refs given the power to overturn a clear cut wrong decision by on field officials. Im not talking about 50 50 calls like hand in the ruck vs poor ball handling or a pass floating forward vs thrown slightly forward. But situations like Friday night when a try was awarded even though everyone saw the 2 metre forward pass on replay.
At the moment they pick and choose when to get involved, namely with contentious 20 metre restart or drop out calls.

I'm more passionate about going the other way where the referee overturns a howler by the vidiots.

 

[Eagles2nv]

I always find it annoying they cannot rule on the forward pass when its clearly out of the hands forward.

Rugby rules on forward passes if it is clear that the ball leaves the hands forward (usually your hand position at time of release is a good indication). Any line calls go the way of the attacking team.

From what i have seen they get it correct most times. You would think with all the advances in 'Hawkeye' that they could get the forward pass correct.

 

[Stevo]

The blanket "cant rule on a forward pass" just seems stupid, it should be "cant be asked to judge a marginal forward pass, however if clear forward pass is seen, then the correct ruling should be applied"

That way, the grandfinal pass probably wouldn't be judged as it was too touch and go, but the one on Friday was clearly forward and should be pulled up

Exactly. The player that received the ball was in front of the bloke who passed it. If he kicked it to him he would have been able to rule on it.

 

[HappilyManly]

The movement started with a breach of the downtown rule. I was expecting them to rule on that.

The only person who can put his Team onside is the kicker and only when they all remained 10 meters from the Defender who touched the ball.
Neither was true on Friday, and the Vidiot could have ruled on that aspect 😡

 

[Stevo]

My rules for video referees.

1. The video ref is there to provide replays and advice to the main on field referee.
2. The referee admits he is not sure on the ruling and asks for clarification.

It's as simple as that. Super rugby has it spot on. The ref says to the video ref can i have clarification on what has happened please. The video ref replays it and then they agree that they are seeing the same thing or not. But ultimately it's the on field refs call. I think with the way it is at the moment, it's too easy for the on field ref to deflect the responsibility of making the call by using the video ref. It's used for trys and on field incidents. The video referee never butts in unless asked to by the ref or captain. This is where the captains challenge comes in. Why should a captain have to deal with a blatantly wrong call?

 

[Daddycool08]

My rules for video referees.

1. The video ref is there to provide replays and advice to the main on field referee.
2. The referee admits he is not sure on the ruling and asks for clarification.

It's as simple as that. Super rugby has it spot on. The ref says to the video ref can i have clarification on what has happened please. The video ref replays it and then they agree that they are seeing the same thing or not. But ultimately it's the on field refs call. I think with the way it is at the moment, it's too easy for the on field ref to deflect the responsibility of making the call by using the video ref. It's used for trys and on field incidents. The video referee never butts in unless asked to by the ref or captain. This is where the captains challenge comes in. Why should a captain have to deal with a blatantly wrong call?

Great idea. but the NRL won't do that.

 

[Alan]

My rules for video referees.

1. The video ref is there to provide replays and advice to the main on field referee.
2. The referee admits he is not sure on the ruling and asks for clarification.

It's as simple as that. Super rugby has it spot on. The ref says to the video ref can i have clarification on what has happened please. The video ref replays it and then they agree that they are seeing the same thing or not. But ultimately it's the on field refs call. I think with the way it is at the moment, it's too easy for the on field ref to deflect the responsibility of making the call by using the video ref. It's used for trys and on field incidents. The video referee never butts in unless asked to by the ref or captain. This is where the captains challenge comes in. Why should a captain have to deal with a blatantly wrong call?

Absolutely! The referee should be the final decision maker, ask for advice and replays yes, but make the final call himself.