Re: Refs : Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:38 pm  

Team warning against us? You having a laugh? Wakey did ten times that amount of spoiling last week but got nothing from Hicks.

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:04 am  

I'm not quite sure what all the whinging is about. I thought both refs in the televised games so far this round were pretty good.

The only issue I have is with Bentham going back 80 metres to check something with the video ref. I don't like that. You've made your decision.

Other than that it's the video ref. With the HKR one I agree the system is rubbish but I'm still not sure he held on to the ball anyway, it's not like it was a dead certain try.
As for the Hull game, yes they should've been 2 penalties for obstruction. The rule regarding whether the receiver has run past the line of the lead runner went out before last season so that's not relevant. What is relevant is that an attacking player, in an offside position, interfered with the defensive line, in both cases. Easy penalty every time. For some reason Thaler didn't give them both as penalties when he should've done.

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:19 am  

Personally I like the fact the ref has to make a call - it makes them accountable and provides their bosses with tangible MI on their performance - I would like to see that MI though and see which refs send the most up to the VR and see what their success rate is with their original calls.

What it also does is minimise the impact not having a VR at every game has - as if the game isn't televised, the ref has to make a guess anyway - so in the 50/50 decisions where there is no conclusive proof, the same decision would be given regardless of whether the game is televised or not.

There could probably be some tweaks to the level of 'conclusive' evidence required to overturn the decision, but the looser you make that interpretation, the more pointless the on field decision becomes.

The real answer though is to have a VR and appropriate cameras at all games or scrap it completely. It will also be interesting to see how the 'bunker' works in the NRL this year.

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:46 am  

Superted wrote:

Personally I like the fact the ref has to make a call - it makes them accountable and provides their bosses with tangible MI on their performance - I would like to see that MI though and see which refs send the most up to the VR and see what their success rate is with their original calls.

What it also does is minimise the impact not having a VR at every game has - as if the game isn't televised, the ref has to make a guess anyway - so in the 50/50 decisions where there is no conclusive proof, the same decision would be given regardless of whether the game is televised or not.

There could probably be some tweaks to the level of 'conclusive' evidence required to overturn the decision, but the looser you make that interpretation, the more pointless the on field decision becomes.

The real answer though is to have a VR and appropriate cameras at all games or scrap it completely. It will also be interesting to see how the 'bunker' works in the NRL this year.

What is the bunker please tell

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:54 am  

cravenpark1 wrote: What is the bunker please tell 'State of the art' replaying Centre that will fast-trak the best views to video referees, similar to what the NFL uses. NFL: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/11/11/inside-th ... and-center NRL: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... n0ldz.html

cravenpark1 wrote: What is the bunker please tell 'State of the art' replaying Centre that will fast-trak the best views to video referees, similar to what the NFL uses. NFL: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/11/11/inside-th ... and-center NRL: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... n0ldz.html

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:58 am  

Wigg'n wrote: cravenpark1 wrote: What is the bunker please tell 'State of the art' replaying Centre that will fast-trak the best views to video referees, similar to what the NFL uses. NFL: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/11/11/inside-th ... and-center NRL: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... n0ldz.html And it's the same refs making the calls on all games every week - which in theory should mean more consistency with decisions, as it will be the same individuals making the decisions at every game, every week. It's cost millions to set up though - we can't even afford suitable cameras at every game, so it's not something we'll see here in a hurry.

Wigg'n wrote: cravenpark1 wrote: What is the bunker please tell 'State of the art' replaying Centre that will fast-trak the best views to video referees, similar to what the NFL uses. NFL: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/11/11/inside-th ... and-center NRL: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... n0ldz.html And it's the same refs making the calls on all games every week - which in theory should mean more consistency with decisions, as it will be the same individuals making the decisions at every game, every week. It's cost millions to set up though - we can't even afford suitable cameras at every game, so it's not something we'll see here in a hurry.

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:36 pm  

Superted wrote:

Personally I like the fact the ref has to make a call - it makes them accountable and provides their bosses with tangible MI on their performance - I would like to see that MI though and see which refs send the most up to the VR and see what their success rate is with their original calls.

What it also does is minimise the impact not having a VR at every game has - as if the game isn't televised, the ref has to make a guess anyway - so in the 50/50 decisions where there is no conclusive proof, the same decision would be given regardless of whether the game is televised or not.

Yes, but that's just not a good enough justification for the current set-up. It's not a question of the refs having a "success rate", since the dice are loaded by the ref having to give a decision on the field. No-one doubts that Hull KR would have had a try the other night if it hadn't been sent up as no-try. This overly slews the VR's decision. If we're going to the VR because we want "the truth" (or as close as possible), why tie his hands in coming to a decision as we now do?

Reluctantly I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a RU-style "Try: Yes or No?" option for refs if they genuinely aren't sure/can't see,

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:46 pm  

Superted wrote:

And it's the same refs making the calls on all games every week - which in theory should mean more consistency with decisions, as it will be the same individuals making the decisions at every game, every week.

It's cost millions to set up though - we can't even afford suitable cameras at every game, so it's not something we'll see here in a hurry.

And very unnecessary. IIRC the NRL rarely has more than 3 games on the same day so all you need to do is have 3 video refs.
That's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than the "bunker" system. It's only because the NRL (and Australia generally) are obsessed with America.

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:46 pm  

9 times from 10 the Shaw try last night would have been given, I have seen a lot less certain tries given, shame as we would have gone in with a commanding lead. While I don't believe referees 'cheat' most fans know which ones their team gets less than a fair shake with, Childs is one of ours, if there is doubt it rarely goes in our favour with him.

Re: Refs : Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:55 pm  

Him wrote:

And very unnecessary. IIRC the NRL rarely has more than 3 games on the same day so all you need to do is have 3 video refs.
That's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than the "bunker" system. It's only because the NRL (and Australia generally) are obsessed with America.

Agreed - seems a monumental waste of cash, but will be interesting to see how it works out... They'll also no doubt have it sponsored to try and recoup some costs. It's KFC time....

My preferred option would be to have the VR at all games, but they can only be used to review touch/in goal lines, grounding and knock ons (from kick tap backs etc). Anything that needs an interpretation such as obstruction should be left to the on field officials.