The fact the ref goes to the VR shows there is an element of doubt in the decision he has made otherwise he wouldn't need to go to the VR at all.
If there is doubt then asking the ref to make a call one way or the other gives a conscious bias to the end decision rather than the absolute correct call which the past version would be looking for (albeit not completely foolproof in itself)

I don't agree with benefit of doubt decisions (is that still in effect?) which are a nonsense, either you have evidence to support a decision or you don't, if you don't then it's no try you can't make guesses based on assumptions.
The system is flawed and should be changed asap.

Follow you? Are you drunk? I have merely patiently explained why you are mistaken. If you can't handle that it isn't my fault. When you post that is just the same as when I post. Or anyone posts. If people replying upsets your equilibrium then maybe you should choose some other diversion.


No, I haven't watched much these last 4 or 5 decades.

During which time I've actually never seen a referee "uable to make a call". Have you? What happened? Presumably the match was abandoned while the ref gazed into his navel?

Don't be silly. That's nowt to do with the point. It would take a special kind of stupid not to be able tomunderstand that a man positioned on the line is best placed to judge if someone or something crossed that line. It's called, er, "his job".


Actually that's my whole problem with the VR, we do NOT have specialists, we just bung referees in front of a fancy screen and assume that because they can referee then they can do the VR job. Sadly many years of experience has frequently demonstrated that additional or different skillsets are required for the VR job and that many refs too often struggle with the task. In principle the VR is a great resource but it should not result in regular controversy yet it frequently does. And as a Bradford fan i should know, but it's hardly just us, even though we've had some purlers.


No, it's not. It is very relevant, you need to keep up with the rule changes. It didn't use to be, over here at least, but now it very much is.

Well, yes.


What do you mean? That the VR wants to support the ref? Doesn't seem to be working that way to me. What else?

I don't see what is wrong with the change. Now, unless the VR can be sure the ref's call is wrong then the on-field decision stands. You seem to suggest thta if the VR ref is also not sure, his guess one way or the other should overrule the on-field ref. But why? If the ref and the VR ref both have doubts, then I prefer the main man, the on-field ref, has the casting vote.


Only because you haven't thought it through. For example, often a player will plunge through the markers from short range a la Jimmy Lowes, and often the pile of bodies will mean the ref cannot possibly actually see the try being scored. Yet his view of the player darting low for the try, the point where he ends up, etc. will likely convince the ref that the player must certainly have scored as he looks to be down on the ground and over the line. So he assumes a try was scored. Yet as he never saw the ball touched down, there must be "a doubt". I'm perfectly happy with a try being given every time in such a case, as it would be. yet you would give "no try"?

Ha! You need to take a step back and read that, because you are the one who is asking why I'm continuing to post an opinion different to yours. I just found it odd that you came onto an entirely different thread to the one in which you and I were debating and took issue with me posting a reply to someone else.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that that's faux ignorance you are displaying there. There are occasions when a referee has had to refer to the VR because his view was obstructed in such a way that were it not for the VR he would have to make a "best guess". Indeed, even the VR can fail to find a clear view and has been known to give a "benefit of the doubt" ruling.

Edit: I note in your reply above this one you give a very good account of an example where a referee cannot make the call because his view is obstructed. Do you maintain that that situation only arises once every 25 years?




It's just as well that we both understand that then. You might want to ask what degree of stupid it would take to not understand that a man with multiple camera angles at his disposal is best placed to make certain calls on tries.


It's irrelevant to your defence of it

The biggest investment the RFL can make to try and stop alienating speccies and help improve the quality of the product is to have video refs at every single game. The big screen doesn't need to be there maybe a similar system to how catalans used to use it.

The problem is that it is a lottery at the moment when a video ref is not involved, and at KR yesterday we saw 2 incidents on review which would of been reviewed and dismissed if a VR was present. One was so blatant it did not need a VR but the ref made a clanger. If the RFL are going to continue using the tag line every minute counts then they need to ensure the people making it count are the 17 putting their bodies on the line week in week out and not some ref in the middle struggling to keep up with play or making bad calls dependent on what mood he is in.

It's a more accurate system the VR, and is usually correct. In the interest of fairness across the sport this needs to be implemented ASAP. Yes some investment is needed, but every game is recorded now and with a little bargaining with sky for an extra camera or two it should help eliminate a large proportion of the mistakes. Hell you could get ex pro's involved who maybe can not physically run any more and give them the job to help bring people back into the game.

Our current ref's need help which is a fact, and the current crop are not getting replaced any time soon. Seem's the best solution to me.

At a push you could have the on field ref double as VR, eliminating the need for additional personnel. As you say, each game is now recorded so we are part of the way there.

And you are absolutely right, we need to be pushing forwards with the VR, trying to get all games up to the standard which the VR allows, but there has always been a vocal opposition to the VR which pushes for moving backwards and not utilising the advantage the VR represents.

Ben Thaler allowing Leeds a try at a crucial point when it was as clear an obstruction as you'll get is up there with some of the clangers on display.

We have 3 fully trained and qualified referees, 1 gets 1 look in real time. 2 get time, mutual angles, and slow motion.

For the most difficult decision, when it can't be conclusively proven. We have decided to go with the referee with the least amount of time and information available and under the most pressure in the worst environment.

I corrected you when you repeated a previously corrected mistake. That is not a "difference of opinion". I am not debating with you, I am posting my twopennorth in a public thread. I of course never took any issue with you posting anything but if you were just posting a reply "to someone else" then may I suggest you use the PM system as otherwise we are fooled into thinking you're posting to the forum at large.

Your inability to see an obvious point is worrying. My example was one where the ref cannot SEE the touchdown but absolutely NOT where he "cannot make the call". There is no circumstance I can readily think of, short of the ref and all his assistants being simultaneously incapacitated, where a ref would be unable to make a call. My example was one of an extreme situation where even then the ref CAN and WILL make a call AND in my example also be confident it is the right call, not a coin-toss. I am now worried that you think there are occasions where referees "cannot make the call". Before you make that claim again, please give us one - just one will do - illustration where a potential try incident happened and the referee was "unable" to make a call. You can't. His call will always be "TRY" or "NO TRY" or "PENALTY" or "PLAY ON" or anything else permitted by the rules, but never "no call". Last season if the on-field ref had doubts or wanted something checking he would refer the case to the VR without saying what he thought. Your mistake seems to be thinking this meant he felt "unable" to make a call. Of course he felt able! Had there been no VR he would without any doubt at all have announced his call!

The kind that posts such a ridiculous straw man, since nobody has argued to the contrary. Well done!

Your arrogance is quite amusing. To actually question other posters as to why they keep having an opinion different to yours when you've been so good as set them straight. You have such a transparent and telling need to convince yourself that differing opinions can only come about through a lack of intelligence too don't you? What's that about I wonder...



My opinion on the new VR set up is clearly expressed in my other posts on the subject, so no point keep raking over old ground. I can accept a difference of opinion even if it's an alien concept to you.

I know which challenge I would rather be on the end of! One left the victim slightly miffed for a minute, one left the victim out on the floor with no memory of the game. You're not really living out your sig there.

Irrelevant. One is an accidental mistime, part and parcel of a contact sport. The other is a professional foul. Petulant, offensive, and nothing more than act of violence. It's not about what you'd rather have done to you, but what was in the mind of the person doing it.

Is it?

How was Westwood's challenge on a yellow when Ah Van's was red?

Didn't half look like Ah Van knew what he was doing. A clenched fist & swinging arm into the face? Oh yes, clearly accidental. Don't know why you think it was mistimed either, he appeared to time it perfectly. It's not as though Charnley was even dipping.

Accidental? Nah. Mistimed? Nah. Rush of blood? Yep.

I think the RFL have got their assessment of Ah Van right, saying he attempted to tackle but was reckless about the outcome. However, the punishment is harsh. It's a 1-2 match ban and they've given him 2 without taking the red card into account, despite it being issued after only 23 minutes. That's pretty much a 3 match ban for what was just an unfortunate accident, imo.

I thought Ah Van was pretty unlucky tbh. It's a contact sport and sometimes things will go slightly wrong. I'd have binned him and left it at that tbh.

As for the Matty Smith incident, you just can't do that. It was 10 yards infront of me and I knew instantly he'd get a ban. It was petulant and soft and gave Handbury exactly what he'd been looking for all game from a Wigan player (a reaction).

Funniest decision though from the weekend has to be no ban for Ben Westwood! That's unbelievable.

Not seen the Westwood incident yet but the RFL report says contact with the chest.

On the particular point, as explained that's not opinion, you just can't accept that you made a glaring mistake.


Eh?

My posts have no bearing on anyone else's intelligence, I'll talk to anyone about RL. Even you! Seing as you press me on the point, I am in no position to comment on your intelligence but I can say you are too wound up and in a huff to stand back and actually consider the point. Which if of reasonable intelligence you would then be certain to get. What's [ithat[/i about..?




So let's close it there, then. Your opinion (I hope I have this right): [iReferees operate in a realm of absolute certainty. If there is any area of doubt in any decision, then they are unable to call it. The fact they do so on a second-by-second basis is terribly unfair. When they have the luxury of a VR then they should use it at every opportunity so that at least for one game, some of the poor loves' terminal inability to make calls is eliminated. If there's a VR, it's cruel to still have the ref indicate his decision, downright inhumane. he shouldn't be put through this.[/i

My opinion: There's plenty of doubt about pretty much every call made in a game, which is why the referee needs to make a "DECISION". He doesn't make a Declaration that [i"I am 100% sure X happened"[/i! He makes decisions, non-stop, thousands of 'em, and I would guess is "certain" about very few. If any. But, his years and thousands of hours of experience however empower and equip him to very confidently make these decisions, and so he does. He makes the call. Every call. And if it is a highly contentious call and he is really struggling then he [istill[/i makes the call, giving the benefit of the doubt to whichever side the rules and his training indicate he should.

My opinion is your opinion is rubbish, and I note you go [iad hominem[/i as you can't argue against what I have explained, but I'll defend to the death etc. your right to have your rubbish opinion. OK?

To some degree, yes; but you wrongly state Ah Van's action was "accidental", it wasn't, it was reckless, and there's a world of difference.

I'd have sent Smith off personally, for being a grub and for doing something that has no place in the game, but the potential for injury of what he did was almost nil, whereas in Ah Van's case the potential if he contacted the head was extremely high and likely to be serious.

Sorry but your posts are full of "if you're too stupid to understand this simple point" so please don't accuse me of making ad hominem attacks or of confusing my own opinion with an indisputable fact the way you seem prone to doing. I have argued against your points in a number of posts, so it's pointless repeating what I've already said especially when you've already got indignant at the fact I don't agree with you. And of course you think my opinion is rubbish. That's what a difference of opinion is. Surely you realise that that's how your opinion appears to those who disagree with you.

Guys! This back-and-forth is not encouraging anyone else to read your posts.


Just sayin'...

Correctamundo!

James Child has got the TV game in Perpignan this weekend.

Wonder if he has some photos of Steve Ganson in very compromising situations.....

On the plus side, the cop out 'on report' is being used less.