Penalty Try?

[mrem]

@happy_tiger they already tried that and people complained

 

[cochise]

@happy_tiger I much prefer the ref making a call before sending it up as it gives a basis for the decision. The bunker has to see proof that over rules the on field decision or the on field decision stands. I'd take it a step further and have the ref ref the game as if there is no bunker and in try scoring situations if the captain disagrees then he challenges the call!

 

[TieDye]

@cochise that’s what I would do, word for word but follow a script of not making ANY onfield call whatsoever initially, but go back to a refs call situation if all else fails. I.E; he wants to give it to even the game out (which you do need ultimately, for a successful business), or this team attempts a barge-over TRY after being on offence for 3/4 of the game and not scoring maybe it’s more likely to see the right call’s in the first place because it won’t be so easily glossed over or repaired if the ref is blatantly favouring one team or the other, for whatever reason and lending his onfield opinion to furthering those politics to a result... because honestly this seems to be the one not many fans really understand and for the life of me, don’t bloody understand how it hasn’t improved RL).

I know it sounds crazy but we must elimate bias this time around with some sort of independent review into rulings and/or clear manifestations of overarching company policy creeping into what is otherwise the best sport in the world. Bunker currently retains far too small amount of power - given how much a ref’s personal opinion and performance during a match is ALWAYS cleared by HQ, without fail, even when they friggn stuff up. A captains call to challenge a somewhat stuck up referee in the heat of battle and just force him to ego check himself a bit would be just what the doc ordered...

Disclaimer; all of the above is easier said than done ✅

 

[The_Patriot]

This was a such a clear cut penalty try. Feel sorry for our fans who dont get that and want to argue the other side.

Guy gets hit in the head in the action of putting the ball down. Its a no brainer penalty try.

 

[TIGER]

@happy_tiger I much prefer the ref making a call before sending it up as it gives a basis for the decision. The bunker has to see proof that over rules the on field decision or the on field decision stands. I'd take it a step further and have the ref ref the game as if there is no bunker and in try scoring situations if the captain disagrees then he challenges the call!

If the ref makes a call there's no need for a video ref.
The reason they send it to the video ref is because they don't know, so what's the point of the video ref hearing a call from the on field ref if they don't know?

If the video sees it differently it doesn't matter what the on field refs call was anyway so why bother hearing it?

 

[earl]

@The_Patriot I don't get this one either. To me it's clear cut.

 

[hobbo1]

@happy_tiger I much prefer the ref making a call before sending it up as it gives a basis for the decision. The bunker has to see proof that over rules the on field decision or the on field decision stands. I'd take it a step further and have the ref ref the game as if there is no bunker and in try scoring situations if the captain disagrees then he challenges the call!

If the ref makes a call there's no need for a video ref.
The reason they send it to the video ref is because they don't know, so what's the point of the video ref hearing a call from the on field ref if they don't know?

If the video sees it differently it doesn't matter what the on field refs call was anyway so why bother hearing it?

Because every time it goes up to the bunker Greenberg pockets more cash from KFC .
But it does make the refs dopier than they actually are !

 

[Jessica]

@hobbo1 it’s true Hobbo ! Hahaha

 

[Jessica]

Shut up n take my money...

 

[The_Patriot]

@The_Patriot I don't get this one either. To me it's clear cut.

I can only assume people dont really Rugby League.

 

[cochise]

If the ref makes a call there’s no need for a video ref.
The reason they send it to the video ref is because they don’t know, so what’s the point of the video ref hearing a call from the on field ref if they don’t know?
If the video sees it differently it doesn’t matter what the on field refs call was anyway so why bother hearing it?

The refs call 100% matters, the video ref has to prove that the refs call was wrong, if they can not prove it then the refs call stands. If we don't have the refs call, what do you suggest the video ref does if they can not prove if a try was scored or not? Guess?

 

[Geo]

If the ref makes a call there’s no need for a video ref.
The reason they send it to the video ref is because they don’t know, so what’s the point of the video ref hearing a call from the on field ref if they don’t know?
If the video sees it differently it doesn’t matter what the on field refs call was anyway so why bother hearing it?

The refs call 100% matters, the video ref has to prove that the refs call was wrong, if they can not prove it then the refs call stands. If we don't have the refs call, what do you suggest the video ref does if they can not prove if a try was scored or not? Guess?

Guess..well for some of them that's pretty much what they doing now..

The one that annoys me most is the inside outside shoulder for the decoy runner..yes they have been consistent with the interpretation but it's often not clear cut with the defender taking the decoy and just fall over rather than the decoy taking out a defender..common sense tells you they have zero chance of stopping the TRY anyway regardless of what the decoy runner has done...

I believe Thompson's No TRY was an example of this..no way the defender was getting anywhere near him and took Rowdy instead and just fell over..cause it was the outside shoulder No TRY..

 

[cochise]

The one that annoys me most is the inside outside shoulder for the decoy runner…yes they have been consistent with the interpretation but it’s often not clear cut with the defender taking the decoy and just fall over rather than the decoy taking out a defender…common sense tells you they have zero chance of stopping the TRY anyway regardless of what the decoy runner has done…

I really like the current interpretation of obstruction! A decoy runner who is in front of the ball runner is offside, he has no business making any contact with a defender. I also like that the runner has the catch the ball on the outside of the decoy as I believe a defender should never have to consider a ball runner running behind a team mate.

The block plays are a blight on the game and these 2 interpretations nullify them to an extent.

 

[voice_of_reason]

The one that annoys me most is the inside outside shoulder for the decoy runner..yes they have been consistent with the interpretation but it's often not clear cut with the defender taking the decoy and just fall over rather than the decoy taking out a defender..common sense tells you they have zero chance of stopping the TRY anyway regardless of what the decoy runner has done...

I agree. At what point is some discretion allowed? There are examples where a defender was clearly not going to have any chance of effecting a tackle but a try disallowed on the technicality of an inside shoulder line.
The problem seems to be as soon as it goes to the bunker it has to be rigidly adjudicated. I'd prefer to see a ref say "you weren't going to get there - try".

 

[cochise]

@voice_of_reason The decoy runner is offside!

 

[voice_of_reason]

@voice_of_reason The decoy runner is offside!

I don't see that makes a difference if they don't have a (genuine) effect on the ability of the defender to make a tackle. No different to players who are offside at every kick in a game - as long as they don't interfere with play they're fine.

We're starting to see Italian football standards of diving to defend a try rather than accepting defensive responsibilities.

 

[cochise]

@voice_of_reason Once they contact a defender, a defender has to make an effort to move past them or make a decision based on an offside player then they have effected play!

 

[Geo]

Thanks Graham..

doesn't surprise my why fans are disillusioned with the game

 

[mike]

@voice_of_reason The decoy runner is offside!

No they are not. I cannot find any definition where they would be considered offside.

 

[hobbo1]

If the ref makes a call there’s no need for a video ref.
The reason they send it to the video ref is because they don’t know, so what’s the point of the video ref hearing a call from the on field ref if they don’t know?
If the video sees it differently it doesn’t matter what the on field refs call was anyway so why bother hearing it?

The refs call 100% matters, the video ref has to prove that the refs call was wrong, if they can not prove it then the refs call stands. If we don't have the refs call, what do you suggest the video ref does if they can not prove if a try was scored or not? Guess?

They should just piss off the video ref all together.
I enjoy watching Canterbury cup for this exact reason ..
Remember the bunker is Geeenberg creation ....says it all really !