|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
www.loverugbyleague.com/news_167 ... -2015.html
[iObstruction
The application of the obstruction law will now focus on enabling the referee to allow play to continue unless the defending team has been materially disadvantaged. The changes clarify the current obstruction policy and remove the ambiguity that caused some confusion for players and spectators alike during 2014.
From 2015, the following indicators will be considered, in the opinion of the referee/video referee for an obstruction:
Offensive considerations:
Lead runner(s) (who do not receive the ball) must not stop in the middle of the defensive line.
Lead runner(s) (who do not receive the ball) must not run at (chest or outside shoulder of) defender/s and initiate contact.
The sweep runner must receive the ball beyond the inside shoulder of the lead runner.
If the sweep runner catches the ball on the inside shoulder of the lead runner and there is sufficient depth to the defensive line and the defenders are not impeded, play should be allowed to continue.
If the sweep runner catches the ball on the inside shoulder of the lead runner and there is insufficient depth to the defensive line, then play should only be allowed to proceed if the defenders are not impeded.
Defensive considerations:
Does the defender initiate contact?
Was there a wrong read by the defender?
Was the defence obstructed?
Ball carrier around the back of his team mate:
Must not disadvantage the defensive line.
Players who are tackled immediately- Play on.
Can concede or succumb to the tackle- Play on.
Concussion
Teams will be allowed an extra ‘free’ interchange in the event of a player suffering an injury that requires a pitchside concussion assessment.
The change is designed to safeguard players against the unseen dangers of concussion by removing any sub-conscious pressure on medical staff to not be over-cautious in removing a player from the field for an assessment.
Sin-bin
The number of main areas in which sin-binning is deemed to be the appropriate course of action is to be changed from seven to four with the aim of helping referees impose immediate real-time sanctions by reducing the number of ‘on report’ decisions.
From 2015, the four main areas used for the sin-bin will be:
Unsportsmanlike conduct (to include but not limited to):
Professional foul, especially in try scoring situations
Delaying a quick 20m restart
Dissent
Repeated infringements
Foul play/Dangerous contact (to include but not limited to):
Man to man confrontation;
Tackles where player(s) are placed in a dangerous position;
Dangerous contact to include, chicken wing type tackles etc.;
An altercation between two players where only one player throws a punch;
Foul play which is not deemed severe enough to be a sending off, however is deserving of a sin bin.
Video referees
A new law will be introduced to enable the referee to make a ‘live decision’ during televised fixtures on any try before being referred to the video referees. The system is similar to that used during the 2014 Four Nations tournament and in the NRL.
When a try is scored which the referee deems worthy of review, he will signal his decision (Try or No Try) before the video referees assess whether there is sufficient evidence to overturn his decision. The process gives parity between televised and non-televised games with the referee being required to make a decision.
The Referee after consultation with the other on field officials will make a ‘Live Decision’.
In the event that the Referee requires a video review, he will call time off and physically signal for a ‘Video Referee review’.
The referee will then signal his ‘Live Decision’ (TRY or NO TRY).
The Video Referees will then review the on field ‘Live Decision’.
The Video Referees will then assess if there is ‘sufficient evidence’ to confirm or overturn the ‘Live Decision’.
If there is ‘sufficient evidence’ the Video Referees will confirm that the ‘Live Decision’ is correct and this will be indicated to the Referee, players and spectators via the screen.
If there is ‘sufficient evidence’ that the ‘Live decision’ is incorrect, the Video Referees will overturn the ‘Live decision’ and the new decision will be indicated to the Referee, players and spectators via the screen.
Where ‘insufficient evidence’ exists, the Video Referees will confirm the ‘Live Decision’ and this will be indicated to the Referee, players and spectators via the screen.
As there will be two Video Referees they will make a collective decision by majority. If there is a split decision the original decision of the Referee will stand.
The Referee will communicate briefly the reason for a ‘Live Decision’ being overturned after it has appeared on the screen.
The Video Referee may review any potential point scoring play.[/i
I think the first three are fine, the VR one is stupid By definition of him passing it upstairs the ref is admitting he isn't sure, so why make him guess? if someone does have to make a 'best guess' why are we asking the person with the least amount of information to make that guess? Its silly and will only lead to more confusion and incorrect decisions. There really is no benefit to it.
|
|
www.loverugbyleague.com/news_167 ... -2015.html
[iObstruction
The application of the obstruction law will now focus on enabling the referee to allow play to continue unless the defending team has been materially disadvantaged. The changes clarify the current obstruction policy and remove the ambiguity that caused some confusion for players and spectators alike during 2014.
From 2015, the following indicators will be considered, in the opinion of the referee/video referee for an obstruction:
Offensive considerations:
Lead runner(s) (who do not receive the ball) must not stop in the middle of the defensive line.
Lead runner(s) (who do not receive the ball) must not run at (chest or outside shoulder of) defender/s and initiate contact.
The sweep runner must receive the ball beyond the inside shoulder of the lead runner.
If the sweep runner catches the ball on the inside shoulder of the lead runner and there is sufficient depth to the defensive line and the defenders are not impeded, play should be allowed to continue.
If the sweep runner catches the ball on the inside shoulder of the lead runner and there is insufficient depth to the defensive line, then play should only be allowed to proceed if the defenders are not impeded.
Defensive considerations:
Does the defender initiate contact?
Was there a wrong read by the defender?
Was the defence obstructed?
Ball carrier around the back of his team mate:
Must not disadvantage the defensive line.
Players who are tackled immediately- Play on.
Can concede or succumb to the tackle- Play on.
Concussion
Teams will be allowed an extra ‘free’ interchange in the event of a player suffering an injury that requires a pitchside concussion assessment.
The change is designed to safeguard players against the unseen dangers of concussion by removing any sub-conscious pressure on medical staff to not be over-cautious in removing a player from the field for an assessment.
Sin-bin
The number of main areas in which sin-binning is deemed to be the appropriate course of action is to be changed from seven to four with the aim of helping referees impose immediate real-time sanctions by reducing the number of ‘on report’ decisions.
From 2015, the four main areas used for the sin-bin will be:
Unsportsmanlike conduct (to include but not limited to):
Professional foul, especially in try scoring situations
Delaying a quick 20m restart
Dissent
Repeated infringements
Foul play/Dangerous contact (to include but not limited to):
Man to man confrontation;
Tackles where player(s) are placed in a dangerous position;
Dangerous contact to include, chicken wing type tackles etc.;
An altercation between two players where only one player throws a punch;
Foul play which is not deemed severe enough to be a sending off, however is deserving of a sin bin.
Video referees
A new law will be introduced to enable the referee to make a ‘live decision’ during televised fixtures on any try before being referred to the video referees. The system is similar to that used during the 2014 Four Nations tournament and in the NRL.
When a try is scored which the referee deems worthy of review, he will signal his decision (Try or No Try) before the video referees assess whether there is sufficient evidence to overturn his decision. The process gives parity between televised and non-televised games with the referee being required to make a decision.
The Referee after consultation with the other on field officials will make a ‘Live Decision’.
In the event that the Referee requires a video review, he will call time off and physically signal for a ‘Video Referee review’.
The referee will then signal his ‘Live Decision’ (TRY or NO TRY).
The Video Referees will then review the on field ‘Live Decision’.
The Video Referees will then assess if there is ‘sufficient evidence’ to confirm or overturn the ‘Live Decision’.
If there is ‘sufficient evidence’ the Video Referees will confirm that the ‘Live Decision’ is correct and this will be indicated to the Referee, players and spectators via the screen.
If there is ‘sufficient evidence’ that the ‘Live decision’ is incorrect, the Video Referees will overturn the ‘Live decision’ and the new decision will be indicated to the Referee, players and spectators via the screen.
Where ‘insufficient evidence’ exists, the Video Referees will confirm the ‘Live Decision’ and this will be indicated to the Referee, players and spectators via the screen.
As there will be two Video Referees they will make a collective decision by majority. If there is a split decision the original decision of the Referee will stand.
The Referee will communicate briefly the reason for a ‘Live Decision’ being overturned after it has appeared on the screen.
The Video Referee may review any potential point scoring play.[/i
I think the first three are fine, the VR one is stupid By definition of him passing it upstairs the ref is admitting he isn't sure, so why make him guess? if someone does have to make a 'best guess' why are we asking the person with the least amount of information to make that guess? Its silly and will only lead to more confusion and incorrect decisions. There really is no benefit to it.
| |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 9721 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2020 | Apr 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Allowing the use of video technology is still detrimental to any sport when involved in making decisions.
If it was that good there would be no need for any match officials at any sport, just people watching a screen and relaying a decision to someone wasting space on the field of play to tell the competitors what has happened and why.
But sadly the genie is out of the bottle so I don't think there will be any "controversial" decisions this season and in the future will there.
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 5064 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2018 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
The video ref one makes perfect sense. The ref makes a call (as he would do without the technology), but allows the technology to review his decision. It is less the VR making the decision but eliminating any doubt in the ref's mind - an option the ref doesn't have when the VR is absent and would just have to make a judgement call.
The only alternative is the ref only gives a decision when he is 100% certain, which would just be stupid.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Gazemous"The video ref one makes perfect sense. The ref makes a call (as he would do without the technology), but allows the technology to review his decision. It is less the VR making the decision but eliminating any doubt in the ref's mind - an option the ref doesn't have when the VR is absent and would just have to make a judgement call.
The only alternative is the ref only gives a decision when he is 100% certain, which would just be stupid.'"
but if the ref isn't sure, why are we placing his opinion above that of another trained and qualified referee with multiple angles and replays at his disposal? How on earth is it going to lead to more correct decisions?
All it will lead to is us going with decisions that the referee isn't sure is right and the VR doesn't think is right and them being justified because 'it wasn't conclusive enough to over-rule him" It doesn't eliminate doubt from the refs mind, it just means when the decision isn't 100% clear, we go with the guess of the person with the least amount of information available to him. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1430 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2009 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Agree stupid rule change regarding the video ref. The referee goes to the video ref as he is unsure if it is a try. We are now giving the ref who is unsure on the decision the biggest say and making it difficult for the video ref to overturn a decision from the ref which might be wrong. Why not go to the video ref as normal and if not conclusive then give the ref the final decision or continue with the benefit of the doubt system.
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 420 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2013 | 12 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2016 | Jan 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="rugbyleague88"Agree stupid rule change regarding the video ref. The referee goes to the video ref as he is unsure if it is a try. We are now giving the ref who is unsure on the decision the biggest say and making it difficult for the video ref to overturn a decision from the ref which might be wrong. Why not go to the video ref as normal and if not conclusive then give the ref the final decision or continue with the benefit of the doubt system.'"
Disagree, keeps it more real if the ref has to make a decision, most of us want refs to make more decisions. And comes in line with the more professional NRL, the NRL are usually right regarding new interpretations/rules.
Also these are NOT new laws, they're just tightening up or improvement of existing laws. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 3011 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2022 | Sep 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Allowing sin-binnings for foul play is new. Could be down to 10-a-side in the first few games if the rules are met with the usual initial enthusiasm.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 10000 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2020 | Nov 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="coco the fullback"Allowing sin-binnings for foul play is new. Could be down to 10-a-side in the first few games if the rules are met with the usual initial enthusiasm.'"
I'm all for it though if it reduces the cop out that is on report. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 3011 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2022 | Sep 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Wellsy13"I'm all for it though if it reduces the cop out that is on report.'"
Absolutely. I think the refs have wanted it for a whie. Fairer to the offended team too.l |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1923 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2019 | Jan 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="OzWelsh"Disagree, keeps it more real if the ref has to make a decision, most of us want refs to make more decisions. And comes in line with the more professional NRL, the NRL are usually right regarding new interpretations/rules.
Also these are NOT new laws, they're just tightening up or improvement of existing laws.'"
Why is it [iless real[/i if the VR makes a ruling? And if most fans want refs to make more decisions, why does this not include the video [uref[/u? It seems some people care more about who makes the decision than whether the decision is right or wrong. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"Why is it [iless real[/i if the VR makes a ruling? And if most fans want refs to make more decisions, why does this not include the video [uref[/u? It seems some people care more about who makes the decision than whether the decision is right or wrong.'"
exactly, who cares which ref makes the decision as long as it is the right one? |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 28186 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2016 | Aug 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Said during the Four Nations that making the on-field ref have a guess before he refers it to the VR is an absolute nonsense, and puts the VR under pressure to back up his on-field colleague.
Like the introduction of the sin bin for foul play which is probably not deserving of a red card like chicken wings and crusher tackles for example.
Just when we've finally got the obstruction rule to a point where the opinion of the referee/VR is irrelevant and it's a matter of fact, why are we going backwards? We're now asking them to make a subjective judgement on whether - in their opinion - a defender has been disadvantaged. That just opens the door to more inconsistent, baffling decisions. Give it a few weeks and a host of controversial calls influencing games and pundits, fans and coaches will be screaming for it to become a matter of fact rather than opinion again.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 1606 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2003 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2021 | Jan 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Andy Gilder"Said during the Four Nations that making the on-field ref have a guess before he refers it to the VR is an absolute nonsense,'"
The problem with that theory is that not every game has a video ref - so in the non-televised games in the exact same situations where the ref is 'being forced to guess' there is no video ref to back this up. This is as close to consistency that we can get whilst ever there isn't a VR at all games - the onfield Ref is in charge and makes all calls - only ever overturned by the VR where available and conclusive proof exists to disprove the Refs stance.
It puts the onus on the ref to make a call - no bottling it and going back 50 yards to check for a dodgy obstruction that they initially let play on without nailing their colours to the mast first - it makes them more accountable and will provide MI on how often an onfield Ref makes the wrong call. All good for performance management of the Refs. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 6406 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2017 | Jun 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Will the new VR rule mean that there is no more "benefit of the doubt" decisions?
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 5392 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 1970 | Jun 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="oli30045"Will the new VR rule mean that there is no more "benefit of the doubt" decisions?'"
What I don't understand is, if there is 'doubt', how can you possibly give a try on the basis of probability and not clear evidence, that's just a loved up way of going about things. Benefit of doubt is utter shiate as it only favours one side.
As for obstruction, again we will have individual interpretations and the same as many other aspects it depends who is reffing (or indeed touchies) as to what decision is made.
Sin binning should be far more definitive. Players punching (be it two facing or otherwise), first offence sin bin, no ifs, no buts. Any subsequent yellow card offence for the same player should be sent off same as you would in soccer, however many that might be, that'll discourage players running in and windmilling and hopefully professional fouls
Obvious intentional head high challenges & indeed those especially late and/or leaving feet ala Bowen early last season should be a straight red. That said when a player is slipping or ducks at the last second then it's impossible for a player whom was aiming chest high to then change his direction in that split second and account should be taken of that.
I'd also like to see the video refs look at these types of incidents live (as per RU) because when you have a dirty shyster like Elima twisting a players leg right in front of the ref who then cowardly put it on report (& the touchies clearly didn't want to know either..s) the team whom may well lose a player to injury because of that foul play never benefit unless the ref has the balls to send the offender off which all too frequently never happens. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 87 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2012 | 12 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2021 | Feb 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I like the rule where the ref can say he thinks it is a good try but he wants the VR to check for offside or a foot in touch etc, that the ref couldn't see.As for the obstruction rule, it is still going to be the opinion of the ref as to whether or not the defence was obstructed, I can't see the new rule improving the situation.When a try is scored and it appears that a defender was impeded, one set of fans will be happy ,the other set of fans will be furious , nothing has changed.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Superted"The problem with that theory is that not every game has a video ref - so in the non-televised games in the exact same situations where the ref is 'being forced to guess' there is no video ref to back this up. This is as close to consistency that we can get whilst ever there isn't a VR at all games - the onfield Ref is in charge and makes all calls - only ever overturned by the VR where available and conclusive proof exists to disprove the Refs stance.
It puts the onus on the ref to make a call - no bottling it and going back 50 yards to check for a dodgy obstruction that they initially let play on without nailing their colours to the mast first - it makes them more accountable and will provide MI on how often an onfield Ref makes the wrong call. All good for performance management of the Refs.'"
whilst all that is true, what use is it to us?
I cannot imagine a situation where we get a better decision by relying on a referee who had one look in real time rather than a VR who has multiple looks from multiple angles.
With regards to consistency, im not sure that being more consistent but getting more wrong is better |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 14970 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2021 | Nov 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I don't think either system will make much difference to be honest. The VR will continue to get most calls right, I want to see the daft, blatantly wrong VR calls eliminated. I know theyre few in number but they're incredibly frustrating and unnecessary. What I want to see is much more money put into the training and development of referees right from the lowest level. And a 2nd referee. But not in the NRL style, I don't like the swapping over of ref's, I don't see a need for it. The 2nd ref should like a roving touch judge in my opinion, who can give advice/instructions to players around the ruck much more easily and obviously have a better view of incidents in the tackle and the ruck.
As for obstruction, I thought the system was fine last year. If teams, coaches didn't try to push the line so close with obstruction they wouldn't have received so many penalties. In the end of you don't want to concede a penalty for obstruction don't send players into the defensive line who are in front of the ball.
Sin bin, very much underused. It's a great tool to punish players and teams without totally distorting the game. So the more it's used the better in my opinion.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 1606 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2003 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2021 | Jan 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"
whilst all that is true, what use is it to us?
I cannot imagine a situation where we get a better decision by relying on a referee who had one look in real time rather than a VR who has multiple looks from multiple angles.
With regards to consistency, im not sure that being more consistent but getting more wrong is better'"
But we're relying on the ref in non televised games, and in the televised games, if the ref has got it wrong, the VR will over turn the decision - but the 50/50 calls are given by the on field ref - that to me is the fairest way. He saw it real time and made an instant judgement (like he does thousands of times a game, and like refs in non-televised games have to). If there's no proof that he got it wrong, then the fairest way is to go with his gut decision and be consistent with non-televised games. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Superted"But we're relying on the ref in non televised games, and in the televised games, if the ref has got it wrong, the VR will over turn the decision - but the 50/50 calls are given by the on field ref - that to me is the fairest way. He saw it real time and made an instant judgement (like he does thousands of times a game, and like refs in non-televised games have to). If there's no proof that he got it wrong, then the fairest way is to go with his gut decision and be consistent with non-televised games.'"
That we don't have a VR at every game is obviously unfair. I don't think not getting the best decision when we can makes it any fairer.
yes, the 'wrong' decision may be given in a non-televised game, but I can't understand why giving that same 'wrong' decision in a televised game is better or fairer? Im at a loss as to why getting two decisions wrong though more consistent, is better or fairer than getting one right and one wrong.
The only time this situation will become relevant is when the VR after multiple viewings and angles disagrees with the referees instant gut decision but can't conclusively prove it was wrong. I cannot for the life of me imagine how this will get us more, better, decisions.
I think Andy Gilder is exactly right with the Hall example, the difference between a VR making the best decision and checking a refs decision meant we ended up with the wrong decision. The VR should simply going through the checklist, did he touch it first, did he touch it down, did he knock it on, he ticks those boxes and says try. When you through in 'was the decision so egregiously wrong that it should be overturned, we get a different answer. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 9565 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2019 | Dec 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
The change to the VR approach speeded things up a lot in the NRL. The pressure on both the on-field ref and VR is lower - the ref makes a call knowing any obvious mistake will be overturned, and the VR supposedly only looks for really clear evidence to make an opposite call.
Previously we had cases where the VR was getting tied up in knots endlessly reviewing tries, clearly looking for something, anything to chalk off a try because the buck stopped with them as the on-field refs virtually gave up all responsibility for making a call.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1820 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2024 | Jun 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
After the farce at the televised Leeds vs Hudds game last year, where the Ref said to VR 'Check Everything!' I'm glad now he will have to make a decision.
Doubt at the game in question he had cause to disallow it. Looked good to the majority of fans in the stadium
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1923 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2019 | Jan 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sherbert Dip"After the farce at the televised Leeds vs Hudds game last year, where the Ref said to VR 'Check Everything!' I'm glad now he will have to make a decision.
Doubt at the game in question he had cause to disallow it. Looked good to the majority of fans in the stadium'"
So for the purpose of avoiding one farce we will now have umpteen situations where the on field ref is unsure but will call try or no try just for the sake of it. Well it makes as much sense as every other RFL policy I suppose. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="TheElectricGlidingWarrior"So for the purpose of avoiding one farce we will now have umpteen situations where the on field ref is unsure but will call try or no try just for the sake of it. Well it makes as much sense as every other RFL policy I suppose.'"
if anything it would make that 'farce' even worse because we would have a VR checking everything trying to disprove a decision the ref just pulled out of his ar5e. We have a situation there where a ref simply had no idea and was admitting he would have been guessing and we are now demanding he does guess and applying more weight to that guess than a VR who has watched it over and over from multiple angles. Its an unbelievably silly situation to put ourselves in . |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 14082 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2017 | Feb 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Works one hundred times better in the NRl this year. Its sped it up and reomved the farcical benefit of the doubt. Ref makes a call as he sees it, video ref has to disprove the call. Fair and understandable for the fans. Its a big improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
