Robbie takes Grant to task

dazza65

dazza65

Well-known member
I love this if it is true

Farah stands up to ARLC chairman: http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/state-of-origin/robbie-farah-personally-challenges-arl-commission-chairman-john-grant-after-state-of-origin-ii/story-fn31yxah-1226671759663?from=public_rss

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
Farah wwas right, Gallen was right. Most fans knew Queensland would get the refs to piggyback them to a win just like NSW got in game 2 last year.

Since the game is decided by ruck speed and freedom it is easy for a ref to set the 'difficulty' for each team. One has a 12m offside line and the other only a 7-8m one, one allows markers to stand shoulder to shoulder for one team but single file for another. On top of that are the grey areas of strips, knockons, forward passes.

All this has come in stride with a bias for bigger players and an emphasis of playing the match on the ground rather that on their feet (i.e standing/running) which is what leads to the various boring wrestlemania games with 10 second play the balls, or worse 10 second for one team and 4 seconds for another.

It affects every team at every professional, semipro and high standard lower grade competition. At NRL and Origin level it can be used for 'control match fixing', borrowing the control adjective from control fraud theoy, this is something where the organisation itself (i.e NRL/ARLC) deliberately fixes or attempts to fix match results so that they maximise their business interests, an origin square up at game 2 is an example.

Another example is not quite as deterministic but still interference is the well known sympathy refereeing and penalty count square ups that some losing teams see in later stages of a match, ideally to keep viewer attention and to prevent them from switching off by making the game closer than it should be under neutral refing.

On top of that we have the human elements and human error that will also affect refereeing, this includes subconscious priming of a ref by crowds, media, other refs, as well as personal bias.

One solution is to make the ruck/tackle a bit more black and white, by calling the tackle when a player has been held without free progression forward for the desire amount of seconds. Rather than allow them to struggle on and attempt an offload 5 or 10 seconds after their forward progression has reached a snails pace.

It is amazing while the ARLC has done a shoulder charge inquiry they have neglected to do one on refereeing, not a pissweak change of staff but a full blown statistical analysis of the effects of subjective refereeing on every facet of the game and the frequency of such. It is perhaps the most important thing to maintain the integrity of the game and it is obvious that the vast majority of league fans have at least some thoughts on the state of refing.
 
@Demonborger said:
Farah wwas right, Gallen was right. Most fans knew Queensland would get the refs to piggyback them to a win just like NSW got in game 2 last year.

Since the game is decided by ruck speed and freedom it is easy for a ref to set the 'difficulty' for each team. One has a 12m offside line and the other only a 7-8m one, one allows markers to stand shoulder to shoulder for one team but single file for another. On top of that are the grey areas of strips, knockons, forward passes.

All this has come in stride with a bias for bigger players and an emphasis of playing the match on the ground rather that on their feet (i.e standing/running) which is what leads to the various boring wrestlemania games with 10 second play the balls, or worse 10 second for one team and 4 seconds for another.

It affects every team at every professional, semipro and high standard lower grade competition. At NRL and Origin level it can be used for 'control match fixing', borrowing the control adjective from control fraud theoy, this is something where the organisation itself (i.e NRL/ARLC) deliberately fixes or attempts to fix match results so that they maximise their business interests, an origin square up at game 2 is an example.

Another example is not quite as deterministic but still interference is the well known sympathy refereeing and penalty count square ups that some losing teams see in later stages of a match, ideally to keep viewer attention and to prevent them from switching off by making the game closer than it should be under neutral refing.

On top of that we have the human elements and human error that will also affect refereeing, this includes subconscious priming of a ref by crowds, media, other refs, as well as personal bias.

One solution is to make the ruck/tackle a bit more black and white, by calling the tackle when a player has been held without free progression forward for the desire amount of seconds. Rather than allow them to struggle on and attempt an offload 5 or 10 seconds after their forward progression has reached a snails pace.

It is amazing while the ARLC has done a shoulder charge inquiry they have neglected to do one on refereeing, not a pissweak change of staff but a full blown statistical analysis of the effects of subjective refereeing on every facet of the game and the frequency of such. It is perhaps the most important thing to maintain the integrity of the game and it is obvious that the vast majority of league fans have at least some thoughts on the state of refing.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
I suppose we can come to these conclusions when we analyse and scrutinise the games as much as we do as pasionate fans, that and the fact there are dozens of cameras at all angles in all speeds to show us basically everything thats occured…we miss little to nothing.

Your points are all valid....the game has changed so much and a penalty nowadays is almost as good as four points if your completing well.

The casual RL observer sees none of this, they see the marquee players, the benji's, Inglis' & Thurstons...they see the biffs and the scores and thats all they see.

I watch too much RL and so often points are scored on the back of refs errors, or refs ''errors''.

It probably happened back in the day when I first started watching at Lidcombe in the 70's, probably happened - well, we all know it did, Hartley - Harrigan etc...lifes a bi+ch

As for the other night, the better team won, but the 'assistance' wasnt even, much can probably be said in reverse for game I
 
Great post Demonburger!

I don't support your underlying conspiracy theory, but definitely support your explanation of how unfair the ruck can be, and that inconsistency - intentional or otherwise - can have a determination in the game outcome.

Anything that can make the ruck more black and white will be better for the game and all involved. A full analysis of the situation would be a fantastic move!
 
Thanks Demonburger, for articulating some things that I have been banging on about on here for ages. I call it 'catch up refereeing' when a losing side suddenly gets three penalties in a row so that the penalty count at the end doesn't look biased. The inconsistency in the ruck and how long the defenders take to release the tackled player are controlled by the ref. and yes, most tries come from penalties.

I also hate the way refs 'call the game' these days - 'tackled' 'move' 'release' 'John, you're offside' etc.
 
@Demonborger said:
Farah wwas right, Gallen was right. Most fans knew Queensland would get the refs to piggyback them to a win just like NSW got in game 2 last year.

Since the game is decided by ruck speed and freedom it is easy for a ref to set the 'difficulty' for each team. One has a 12m offside line and the other only a 7-8m one, one allows markers to stand shoulder to shoulder for one team but single file for another. On top of that are the grey areas of strips, knockons, forward passes.

All this has come in stride with a bias for bigger players and an emphasis of playing the match on the ground rather that on their feet (i.e standing/running) which is what leads to the various boring wrestlemania games with 10 second play the balls, or worse 10 second for one team and 4 seconds for another.

It affects every team at every professional, semipro and high standard lower grade competition. At NRL and Origin level it can be used for 'control match fixing', borrowing the control adjective from control fraud theoy, this is something where the organisation itself (i.e NRL/ARLC) deliberately fixes or attempts to fix match results so that they maximise their business interests, an origin square up at game 2 is an example.

Another example is not quite as deterministic but still interference is the well known sympathy refereeing and penalty count square ups that some losing teams see in later stages of a match, ideally to keep viewer attention and to prevent them from switching off by making the game closer than it should be under neutral refing.

On top of that we have the human elements and human error that will also affect refereeing, this includes subconscious priming of a ref by crowds, media, other refs, as well as personal bias.

One solution is to make the ruck/tackle a bit more black and white, by calling the tackle when a player has been held without free progression forward for the desire amount of seconds. Rather than allow them to struggle on and attempt an offload 5 or 10 seconds after their forward progression has reached a snails pace.

It is amazing while the ARLC has done a shoulder charge inquiry they have neglected to do one on refereeing, not a pissweak change of staff but a full blown statistical analysis of the effects of subjective refereeing on every facet of the game and the frequency of such. It is perhaps the most important thing to maintain the integrity of the game and it is obvious that the vast majority of league fans have at least some thoughts on the state of refing.
Click to expand...

If we still had rep points you would get all of mine.
 
Great post by Demonborger and others. What gets me though is that all this ref bias is so bleeding obvious to players and fans, yet it continues to be tolerated in the game and it's so damn frustrating (and expensive for some - just ask Ricky Stuart). North Qld's bitter and controversial exit from last years finals series, through obvious ref error/bias, still astounds me every time I think about it. It's just plain wrong that match officials can have so much influence over a team's standing when they have worked so hard all year to get a chance of winning the comp.
 
@Flippedy said:
Great post by Demonborger and others. What gets me though is that all this ref bias is so bleeding obvious to players and fans, yet it continues to be tolerated in the game and it's so damn frustrating (and expensive for some - just ask Ricky Stuart). North Qld's bitter and controversial exit from last years finals series, through obvious ref error/bias, still astounds me every time I think about it. It's just plain wrong that match officials can have so much influence over a team's standing when they have worked so hard all year to get a chance of winning the comp.
Click to expand...

Gee if I was the cynical type I could put forward that there is some shinanagins going on with some of our referees. But you and I know that NRL refs are human and only make honest mistakes.

Only oversea's soccer refs are prone to take the odd bribe, thank goodness.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
There's too much we don't know, and biases and errors can be on multiple levels:
1) institutional by the NRL, the broadcaster or the referees association
2) personal by the referee(s)

And can be multiple different scales:
1) end result determinism (scoreboard results)
2) process determinism (favouring certain types of play over others, compare 05 to the peak of the Storm success)
3) input determinism (targeting certain 'listed' players over others, i.e profiling guys like Blair and ignored blessed Slater).

For a variety of reasons:
1) rules are too grey and subjective to enforce effectively
2) referee is incompetent (wrong place, wrong time, misses things, poor personal judgement
3) the shape the game for personal profit
4) to align the process or result of the game for benefit of one of the games institutions (broadcaster, nrl, etc)

Who is accountable?
1) NRL/ARLC - they appoint the refs boss/referees so if a ref is incompetent then they are responsible. They have the scope to manipulate games by issuing refs directives (of types suggested above). They along with IRL have scope to review and reform both interpretations and rules entirely, but they allow grey areas to remain or provide half baked solutions with little or no proper testing or strategy.
Finally any criticism by stakeholders (players, coaches) seems to be ineffective or even opposed outright (fines for bringing the game into disrepute - sure the articulation and energy is for self interest ala Stewart and should be better utilised for reform).
2) Broadcasters - they must not interfere with the game to determine or script results for ratings, it may work for their benefit in the short term but if it goes on too long and becomes too blatant the likelihood of ratings loss will increase as fans lose confidence in the sport. Track cycling and rowing used to be massive spectator sports in late 1800's/early 1900's Sydney but both had max fixing scandals that saw them never recover.
3) Refs - they should be held to account more than they are, Robinson this season for instance has had a few highly suspect games (us vs Storm in Melbourne and Parra @ Gold Coast).
4) Fans - two aspects, firstly we can't allow ourselves to accept rubbish refereeing that may be deliberately manipulated, and secondly we should encourage the NRL to fix some subjectivities and biases in the rules and interpretations.

As it stands coaches, media, broadcasters, league identities and the ARLC/NRL all have a say but the fans get little direct input, hopefully the NRL Nation fixes this, but i dunno…

The problem is multileveled.
 
@innsaneink See your still full of shit . Where did you learn to read? A hong kong brothel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 647 (members: 8, guests: 639)
Back
Top