Video ref costs another team a win

[ManlyBacker]

I don't have a problem with keeping the video ref. At least the Tiges got the last try instead of being ruled 'held up'. But that was a seriously ugly look to stuff it up so badly on the no shepherd try. How can they be so incompetent? As others said, Hall falls over a mile from the play and it is 'no try' on an obstruction, and then you get something that is so blatant and it is no probs. Total rubbish. I felt like kicking the tv.

 

[mickqld]

Dont get rid of the video ref just limit the video decisions to the grounding of the ball only.I know that Clarke and Bumstead can still manage to **** those up as well but take the subjectivity of an individuals decsion out of replaying lead up to tries. Just let the 2 refs judge on the lead up play like they do throughout the normal game time and the video ref on whether the ball is grounded or not.

 

[Jethro]

Get rid of the second on-field Referee and the Video Referee but keep the video for the only on-field Referee to view to make the decisions. Let him have full responsibility for all decisions during the game.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

Still can't see how these blind c's in the box view it 10 times and still get it wrong.
do they have no commonsense at all

 

[mickqld]

Still can't see how these blind c's in the box view it 10 times and still get it wrong.
do they have no commonsense at all

Because unlike everyone else who looks at it with common sense the refs are looking at it via Bill's guidelines and checklists which is causing these rediculous decisions. Get rid of Harrigan and let the refs judge a game by commonsense and how the game is suposed to be played.

 

[The Who]

Get rid of the second on-field Referee and the Video Referee but keep the video for the only on-field Referee to view to make the decisions. Let him have full responsibility for all decisions during the game.

Yes. I could go along with this.
One problem the video ref has created is taking the authority from the on field ref. Last night there was an obvious knock on by a Berries player. The ref should have immediately ruled. Instead they let the play continue and the Berries ' scored'. Had that gone for one play longer the video ref would not have been able to rule on the knock-on, and the ' try' would mistakenly have been awarded.
Why have we complicated a simple game? Why are the on-field refs too scared to make a decision? It has also contributed to young players continually questioning the authority of the referee.
As well as slowing down the game, video ref is harming referee standards and costing the NRL huge amounts - money that could be spent on training more referees.

 

[Rusty]

I still contend that the video ref should only have the footage needed to rule on the try, no other information.

Last night the only reason the video ref pushed the 'Refs Call' button on the Farrah try was because he knew that the ref had already given a held up call. ANY OTHER time that would have been a benefit of the doubt try at worst.

This is why the video ref is being accused of bias, because they are making calls that take into account the shape of the game, who is winning and by how much, what the penalty count is and how to get a blockbuster golden point finish.

For those who are saying a point each would have been fair last night, consider the Tigers were duded at both ends and should have won by 12. They should have been given both points and the only reason they were not was the refs concocted a close game for the TV ratings.

 

[Eagles2nv]

I believe the donkeys supporters are also livered at their video ref.

I honestly felt that Waqa knocked on.

 

[mickqld]

Livered is that with onions as well.

 

[mozgrame]

I believe the donkeys supporters are also livered at their video ref.

I honestly felt that Waqa knocked on.

**** on their livers??