Quote bren2k="bren2k":2rfpk9crYou're polarising the debate in such a way that I don't think actually exists.'"
:2rfpk9cr
It existed in the post I replied to. Was kinda the point, really.
Quote bren2k="bren2k":2rfpk9cr...week after week, there are inconsistent and inexplicable decisions being made...'"
:2rfpk9cr
That's just hyperbole. Is it possible to get 100% consistency or anywhere near? Er, no. Therefore by definition, there is always inevitable "inconsistency" to some degree, as in all but the most clear cut decisions, there are arguments
a) whether it was or was not an infringement / try / in touch / whatever; and
b) even if technically it was an infringement,whether a penalty should be given.
Inexplicable decisions? I doubt that very much. I'd bet any ref would be able to explain any given decision. Of course, he might have made a mistake, but the point of a ref is that you have to have someone to make the decisions and so that's what they do.
Or, if we have "week after week... inexplicable decisions" maybe you could post a selection of this weeks, and explain in what way you feel they were "inexplicable".
Quote bren2k="bren2k":2rfpk9cr The two main problems, in my view, are that a) the TJ's are not used in anything like an efficient way '"
:2rfpk9cr
I don't understand your point, but it is the ref's job to make the calls, the TJ mainly rules touch, some forward passes, and reports serious foul play the ref has not seen. I for one wouldn't want the TJs upgraded to sort of vice-referees, if that's what you mean.
Quote bren2k="bren2k":2rfpk9cr and b) the current VR system requiring the ref to judge on something he hasn't seen, hence his referral to the VR in the first place, is fundamentally flawed.'"
:2rfpk9cr
No, your argument is bogus. If there was no VR then the ref WOULD HAVE TO rule 100% on every single one of these calls. And they do. The fact he has not specifically seen X does not absolve the ref from having to rule on X.
If the ref not only literally "has not seen" X, still from his experience and also assumptions from watching intently the whole incident being ruled upon, he must make the call. So if he doesn't see the ball being grounded; but after the event when all the players get up, he sees the "tryscorer" at the bottom with ball on ground, he might reasonably see no grounds to decline a try. Are you dissatisfied with that? I'm not. This is where your case becomes bogus - because in this and similar situations, we ALREADY DO require the ref to judge on something he hasn't seen.
All that the new system does is (a) allow a second look at video from different angles, so that perhaps the VR CAN SEE that which the ref could not; and (b) tells us what the ref's decision would have been have there been no VR, so unless the VR is sure that is wrong, it will stand. And so it should, giving the ref the respect and primacy he deserves.
Incidentally I have for a long time bemoaned the many mistakes that have been made by VRs over the years, and there is no similar saving grace foir them - if you have all the angles and the slo mo, you shouldn't screw up, but they do. That is not a ref criticism though, IMHO the ability to be an on-field ref doesn't necessarily make you a good VR. They should concentrate on finding a way to eliminate the VR screw-ups. But these are not the fault of the on-field ref.
Quote bren2k="bren2k":2rfpk9crFundamentally of course, the single biggest problem with officiating RL is that players are coached to cheat - and some of them do it very well - so down with that sort of thing.'"
Indeed, but in many respects they are coached not to "cheat", but to take it down to the wire - e.g. slowing the PTB - and the example of "holding down" is a perfect example of where if you asked 100 fans to vote yes or no on a dozen specimen tackles, you wouldn't get the same set of answers from any two individuals. So for one of the 100 fans to call for "consistency" is actually asking the nonsensically impossible since it presupposes we all agree on when a penalty should be given, when the truth is a seven day camel ride in the opposite direction of that.