Bunker blues

[eyewonder]

there is always dispute over referees and or bunker decisions.
nothing has changed ,even with the advent of technology.

one call,from the referee,try or no try.
then get on with it.
simple.

 

[innsaneink]

So Archer had come out and said Solomon Katas try Shouldve been awarded…. Is this the one right on half time?

 

[Geo]

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-hq–referee-review-rd-25/tabid/10959/contentid/874094/default.aspx

Blah Blah Blah..dribble dribble meh...

 

[newtiger]

They wouldn't need any more cameras to rule on forward passes. All they need to do is superimpose a grid on the field and then see which way the ball goes on that grid. It could be done quickly and simply. Forward passes are a blight on the game as you just can't defend against them.

They should use the soccer model which shows offsides, the 10 yrd ring for free kicks both adequately could show the 10m rule, i agree its simple if they can do it in the A league premier league ect why cant the NRL do it :bash

Its not so simple as that.
You have to take into account the forward velocity of the player throwing the pass.
If he's running at full pelt a legal pass will travel forward with respect to the ground.
The best people to judge a forward pass is the touch judges who are running on the same line as the play.
I guess they could have cameras on each side that travel with the line of play, or just get the touchies to do their job.

They can't even see when someone has their foot on the line.

 

[newtiger]

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-hq–referee-review-rd-25/tabid/10959/contentid/874094/default.aspx

Blah Blah Blah..dribble dribble meh...

They didn't have the guts to say that Manu's rake back lead to a try.

 

[pHyR3]

They wouldn't need any more cameras to rule on forward passes. All they need to do is superimpose a grid on the field and then see which way the ball goes on that grid. It could be done quickly and simply. Forward passes are a blight on the game as you just can't defend against them.

They should use the soccer model which shows offsides, the 10 yrd ring for free kicks both adequately could show the 10m rule, i agree its simple if they can do it in the A league premier league ect why cant the NRL do it :bash

Its not so simple as that.
You have to take into account the forward velocity of the player throwing the pass.
If he's running at full pelt a legal pass will travel forward with respect to the ground.
The best people to judge a forward pass is the touch judges who are running on the same line as the play.
I guess they could have cameras on each side that travel with the line of play, or just get the touchies to do their job.

It is asking too much for officials to take into account the pace of the passer. A forward pass is a forward pass is a….....

ummm… no its not?

check the definition of a forward pass first

https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg?t=26

 

[pHyR3]

So Archer had come out and said Solomon Katas try Shouldve been awarded…. Is this the one right on half time?

yeah thats it

a bit 50/50\. can see it going both ways, but makes sense what he said. in SJ's try he ran directly through the whole created by aaron woods being unable to see and move towards SJ while impeded. in kata's try, rankin being impeded didnt really have any effect on anything to be honest

 

[TCL]

I listened to the Archer interview and he claimed (I'm not quoting just paraphrasing) that after the Obstruction other players had the opportunity to make the tackle and that the try was on the other side of the park?????

This is only the case because the warriors player used his team mate to gain an advantage. It shouldn't matter what happens after the event. What matters is that the player JR at that point in time was denied an opportunity to make the tackle Full Stop. it doesn't matter if he would have or wouldn't have, it doesn't matter who else had the opportunity to make the tackle and it doesn't matter where the try was scored.

Archer says "he runs behind a team mate" thats a shepherd. What happens after and where the try is scored has no baring this is why the NRL struggle with rulings!!

SO if i hold up a bank and get no money and hurt nobody, then have I really committed a crime??

 

[Yossarian]

Yeah his position seemed to be you can use an obstruction to create an advantage so long as the resulting try is sufficiently far enough away. Next week he'll explain why you can knock the ball on if the defensive team has enough time to regroup.

 

[TrueTiger]

Quite a good discussion regarding the bunker…I think as others on here that there was some bad calls ,however they did even out and maybe the refs can scrutinise the rules a bit more...

On another note in this regard,the thing that really s"*ts me,is when an attacking team have momentum up the middle and are making plenty of yards,there are the FLAT PASSES from dummy half that are blatantly forward and its not acted upon,this gives the attacking team heaps of go forward and positional play, this is the area I think VRs show be aloud to intervene...just my opinion but a thought anyway....

 

[Juro]

My preferred solution is to have sensors in all players' boots as well as the ball. These sensors would send signals to the computer to plot where all players are at all times during the game. Vatuvei's foot on the sideline would immediately be spotted. Players being offside would automatically be spotted. With enough programming, you'd be able to tell whether a pass was forward, taking into account the speed of the player running.

We need as much automated refereeing as possible, because the humans we are using at the moment are not working!

 

[Juro]

They should use the soccer model which shows offsides, the 10 yrd ring for free kicks both adequately could show the 10m rule, i agree its simple if they can do it in the A league premier league ect why cant the NRL do it :bash

Its not so simple as that.
You have to take into account the forward velocity of the player throwing the pass.
If he's running at full pelt a legal pass will travel forward with respect to the ground.
The best people to judge a forward pass is the touch judges who are running on the same line as the play.
I guess they could have cameras on each side that travel with the line of play, or just get the touchies to do their job.

It is asking too much for officials to take into account the pace of the passer. A forward pass is a forward pass is a….....

ummm… no its not?

check the definition of a forward pass first

https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg?t=26

That video is for union, not league. Are the rules the same?

 

[TCL]

My preferred solution is to have sensors in all players' boots as well as the ball. These sensors would send signals to the computer to plot where all players are at all times during the game. Vatuvei's foot on the sideline would immediately be spotted. Players being offside would automatically be spotted. With enough programming, you'd be able to tell whether a pass was forward, taking into account the speed of the player running.

We need as much automated refereeing as possible, because the humans we are using at the moment are not working!

Yep with advances in technology this is certainly something that should be looked at.

 

[pHyR3]

Its not so simple as that.
You have to take into account the forward velocity of the player throwing the pass.
If he's running at full pelt a legal pass will travel forward with respect to the ground.
The best people to judge a forward pass is the touch judges who are running on the same line as the play.
I guess they could have cameras on each side that travel with the line of play, or just get the touchies to do their job.

It is asking too much for officials to take into account the pace of the passer. A forward pass is a forward pass is a….....

ummm… no its not?

check the definition of a forward pass first

https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg?t=26

That video is for union, not league. Are the rules the same?

yes, unless you think the passes in the video (including passing behind your head) were forward

 

[pHyR3]

Its not so simple as that.
You have to take into account the forward velocity of the player throwing the pass.
If he's running at full pelt a legal pass will travel forward with respect to the ground.
The best people to judge a forward pass is the touch judges who are running on the same line as the play.
I guess they could have cameras on each side that travel with the line of play, or just get the touchies to do their job.

It is asking too much for officials to take into account the pace of the passer. A forward pass is a forward pass is a….....

ummm… no its not?

check the definition of a forward pass first

https://youtu.be/box08lq9ylg?t=26

That video is for union, not league. Are the rules the same?

yes

 

[jirskyr]

I listened to the Archer interview and he claimed (I'm not quoting just paraphrasing) that after the Obstruction other players had the opportunity to make the tackle and that the try was on the other side of the park?????

This is only the case because the warriors player used his team mate to gain an advantage. It shouldn't matter what happens after the event. What matters is that the player JR at that point in time was denied an opportunity to make the tackle Full Stop. it doesn't matter if he would have or wouldn't have, it doesn't matter who else had the opportunity to make the tackle and it doesn't matter where the try was scored.

Archer says "he runs behind a team mate" thats a shepherd. What happens after and where the try is scored has no baring this is why the NRL struggle with rulings!!

SO if i hold up a bank and get no money and hurt nobody, then have I really committed a crime??

Totally agree.

Either Rankin was obstructed or he was not; what happened next with Edwards is irrelevant. Did Lolohea obtain an advantage? Yes he did, by avoiding an attempted tackle that bought him extra time to step and throw a better pass.

For mine, the Johnston one is only different because he runs forward into the hole behind the block, not across. But Archer is giving opinions - the press in NZ are going off like they've been robbed, though it's still just Archer's personal interpretation of those two tries.

In fact I could understand, though not agree with, an argument where the Johnston try is in fact awarded because Woods is too far off the play to make a realistic tackle on Johnston. Just another interpretation, what we are looking for is consistency of interpretation.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I listened to the Archer interview and he claimed (I'm not quoting just paraphrasing) that after the Obstruction other players had the opportunity to make the tackle and that the try was on the other side of the park?????

This is only the case because the warriors player used his team mate to gain an advantage. It shouldn't matter what happens after the event. What matters is that the player JR at that point in time was denied an opportunity to make the tackle Full Stop. it doesn't matter if he would have or wouldn't have, it doesn't matter who else had the opportunity to make the tackle and it doesn't matter where the try was scored.

Archer says "he runs behind a team mate" thats a shepherd. What happens after and where the try is scored has no baring this is why the NRL struggle with rulings!!

SO if i hold up a bank and get no money and hurt nobody, then have I really committed a crime??

Totally agree.

Either Rankin was obstructed or he was not; what happened next with Edwards is irrelevant. Did Lolohea obtain an advantage? Yes he did, by avoiding an attempted tackle that bought him extra time to step and throw a better pass.

For mine, the Johnston one is only different because he runs forward into the hole behind the block, not across. But Archer is giving opinions - the press in NZ are going off like they've been robbed, though it's still just Archer's personal interpretation of those two tries.

In fact I could understand, though not agree with, an argument where the Johnston try is in fact awarded because Woods is too far off the play to make a realistic tackle on Johnston. Just another interpretation, what we are looking for is consistency of interpretation.

Yeah, just like I wrote in the live thread, it has always been a shepherd and only recently have they made a rod for their own backs with the interpretation crap. I would have absolutely no problem with either of those being taken off us.