If you dropped a ref whenever he makes a mistake that costs a try, there would be literally no refs available each week.

The same formula applies to players, incidentally.

thought someone else went fulltime when smith moved to coaching side tbh keeping us at 7. Still think 7 is too small a number of fulltime officials though.

We are not saying for one mistake, we are meaning an overall poor refereeing performance. At the minute our ref's have no accountability for poor performance.

These are the fulltime refs.
Thierry Alibert
Phil Bentham
James Child
Steve Ganson
Richard Silverwood
Ben Thaler

I was thinking hewer (sp) had gone fulltime as well. The justification at the time they introduced fulltime refs was to improve standards. The RFL seem very reluctant to drop any of the fulltime officials,barring injury, when there performances are poor. As long as there arent more fulltime refs than fixtures each week then the same group are going to be effectively guaranteed a game irrespective of their perfomance the previous week. Can only think of a handful of occasions over last few years where a fulltime ref has been dropped down to championship games (not that I'd wish some of performances we saw over weekend on the championship fans).

Who is SP?

means I'm not sure of the spelling of the word/name immediately preceeding it mick.

The best point made in this thread is that about using the injustice as motivation

Fortunately, in Mick Potter we now have a coach who is intelligent enough to do just that. I expect him to have a video made of the all the various questionable decisions, for team talks later in the week

Doubtful, I would hope and expect he has done a video of the things the players can control and improve on. There will always be 50-50 calls that go against a side but there were some things we could have done better on Sunday that would have given us our 1st win of 2011.

If he is so intelligent perhaps he will be copying Leeds' obviously successful ploy? And I would bet my mortgage he doesn't have such a video made, they were not the reasons Bradford lost. He will be looking at individual & collective errors & successes.

Totally agree with this, we shouldn't have been in a position to worry about 50/50 decisions after building up the lead. Bit of composure and tighter play could have seen us home.

But there is a big difference between an honest mistake and incompetence. I haven't replayed and won't be replaying the Buderus incident, as our game has gone and I've said my bit; but in ANY televised game, IF it is correct that a player in a VR call did get involved in the play after starting blatantly offside and the Video Ref missed it, then that's actually a huge error by the VR. If I were Cummings, I would think such incompetence was on the inexcusable side of slack.

I can't seem to find the thread asking where Leeds' goal line drop out was when Kearney was clearly tackled behind the line? Which is also clearly visible on video evidence. Or are we only picking up on ref errors that didn't go in your favour?

Funny that.

I missed the one where Royston was taken out in exactly the same vein to BJB by Brett Delaney, resulting in a totally different outcome.

The point made at the start of this thread is a perfectly valid one, it was an enormous thing to miss from the officials, especially with the facility of the VR being available for usage. I for one aren't saying it cost us the game blah blah, I don't think it did, but these kinds of things should not be missed.

Was the VR asked to look at it? No?
Think the point is that the VR was asked to look at the legality of the Leeds try, he totally failed to spot the infringement by Buderus. He could have taken as long as he liked to look at it to check he got it right. He took enough time to make up...er...see Walker's knock on so there should be no excuse for getting this one wrong too. So an error by the VR. Not a "real time mistake" by the ref.

Not half as funny as a pis=#FFFFFF[size=50.[/sizespoor troll attempt failing miserably due to inability to understand what the thread is actually about.

I didn't see it at the time, neither did the ref or VR, neither did it get mentioned by the Sky team. So until I see it for myself, or read an admittance of mistake by the RL, I will assume it is more bitter paranoia from an embarrassingly large minority.

It was a "real time mistake" though wasn't it. The VR is not allowed to look for something that he wasn't asked to look for. He can't just decide to have a gander at everything that's going on.

You clearly hear the ref say stuff like... "Just check the grounding for me Steve mate!", or "Just looking to see if Graham was onside please!". The VR can't take it upon himself to say, "The grounding was fine but whilst I was looking at the grounding I noticed this...". The VR can only look at what he has been asked to look at.

Ganson made a "real time mistake" and didn't spot Buderus, so didn't ask Silverwood to check. The fact that the VR might have spotted it is irrelevant. He wasn't asked to check it because of Ganson's "real time mistake". There was no error by the VR.

I don't want to get involved in the actual debate, but I just wanted to point out that what you have said her is complete and total b0llocks. It's something that's been made up by someone (be it a fan or a pundit) and is actually not true at all. The video ref can call anything he sees and look at anything he chooses up to the last play-the-ball. If he thinks he's seen something that the referee hasn't mentioned, he is well within his authority to check it.

Incidentally, my source on this is Stuart Cummings himself.

Was there an incident between 2 teams somewhere in Wales around 2007 when a VR took it upon himself to act outside his powers? Perhaps someone on here can remember.

The difference being there, that is was during live action and it hadn't been referenced to the VR. Since that incident, the Video Referee's Microphone is not switched on during normal play, and is only used when he is requested. But once he is requested, he is free to chirp in on things the referee may not have seen.

Again, straight from the mouth of Mr Cummings.

Well it's a good job they don't all take it particually seriously then isn't it. If they were rewinding every try to the previous play the ball I'm pretty sure you can find at least one reason to disallow every single try. Not least the fact it probably wasn't played correctly.

They won't go back and watch the whole thing "just for the sake of it". But if they think they've seen something, or while watching a replay of something requested, they notice something else, then they are free to rule on it.

Must've missed it then. What can I say. Obviously our brown envelope reached him just in time.

Placed onside 3. An off side player is placed onside if:

(a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the ball.
(b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.
(c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him.
(d) one of his own team kicks or knocks the ball forward and takes up a position in front of him in the field of play.
(e) he retires behind the point where the ball was last touched by one of his own team


[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/14_offside[/url