Video Refs

C

Chainlink

Well-known member
This will seem bitter after last nights loss but this is more about venting my pet hate of nrl rules.

After a decade of video refs I still cant understand why they are aloud to adjudicate on some things and not others.

They can rule on a player being offside from a kick but cant rule on forward pass. Often players are offside when thrown a forward pass so it seems odd they cant be called by video refs.

Video refs can spend 10 minutes trying to determine if a ball was places on a blade of grass but cant adjudicate on incorrect play the balls.

They can overturn on field decisions during play at scrums but cant over rule all rule breaches leading to a try.

Why cant the video referees be able to adjudicate on ALL nrl rules for the play that led to a try? It seems ludicrous that they can adjudicate on some but not all rules. If we have the benefit of a replay, lets use it consistently to ensure all rules are obided by or scrap the rule.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
 
The pass from dummy half when Naquama almost scored was forward.
Having their hands tied in one rule is ridiculous and makes us look a joke….I was trying to explain this to my gf last night....I struggled to answer her 'why not? ' when I told her they cannot rule on forward passes...another brain dead decision...it's really insane

_Posted using RoarFEED Android 1.2.3_
 
Watch Gavin Cooper get charged by the match review committee in the week too.

I'm sure at some point I remember hearing that video refs in union can only rule on what happens in the in goal area? Sure it's not the best solution, and I'd rather they take the time to make sure everything is right, but it's an alternative to speed up decisions. Either that or a 30-45 second clock limit.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
 
There is a significant problem with the integrity of the game at the moment caused by the intervention of video referees on matches. This has been discussed a lot and widely commented on in the media, but the influence of the video referee continues to increase.

Looking at Api's supposed strip, I just can't see how that can be ruled as such. The referee on the field called it a knock on, Api goes to tackle the player and tackles him, in doing so he hits the ball and it comes out. Earlier in the game a Raiders players shoulder dislodges the ball from Klemmer's grasp, forcing a knock on. Both are just excellent tackles and loose carries by the players. But the microscopic surveillance of the game by the video ref is making every play strangely tentative and uncertain. And the issue that gets to me is that at times the video referee appears to play more the passive observer role and at other times goes into full interventionalist mode.

I've seen tackles like Api's reviewed in the past and just called a knock on. Yes, there's contact with the ball, but he's also making the tackle and the referee has made a call and there's little reason to overturn it.

But then at other times, like for instance the infamous Cowboys and Tigers game, the video referee seems to be even anticipating the call and identifying a problem and intervening and interpreting a play in a way that demands understanding of a player's intention.

So in the horrible shepherding call, the player is running towards the ball with eyes for the ball, but the video referee assumes that he is running in a particular way that can be seen to be deliberately obstructing the opposing player. You can't see it in the action of the player, but the video referee intervenes and interprets it that way. In the Api decision last night, Api makes a tackle and successfully tackles a player, with his arm movement wrapping the player up, but the vide referee interprets his arm movement as a deliberate stripping action in the more traditional sense, rather than incidental contact. It just is going too far. We know what ripping at the ball looks like, there's no need to protect ball carriers from errors in the way the video referee did.

Then the video referee sees no indiscretion in the push in the back on Brooks for the Raiders third try. Perhaps that was or wasn't a penalty, but I've also seen those plays called back by a more interventionalist video referee.

It therefore is just a lottery when the video referee intervenes. Will we be getting the passive, omniscient observer who allows for the game to play out? Or, will we get the interventionalist interpretive video referee whose judgement depends not only on endless slow motion replays, but also assumptions about player intention that goes beyond simple actions that occur on the field.

Underneath all of that I would offer a deeper conspiracy of a sort of subconscious bias in which good teams and organisations get the benefit of good intentions, where struggling clubs tend to get closely examined and scrutinised for every action, so that a push in the back is incidental by one club, but is malicious by another; that a loose carry is a knock on by one club but a strip by another; that a player moving towards the ball is legal for one team, but shepherding for another.

So at the heart of matches these days is a shifting and unstable decision making process that I have no confidence in. For all the benefits it provides, I do not believe it is improving the quality of officiating in matches. I do not like the video referee system.
 
So, to totally undermine half of my post, I just watched the replay of the play and it was DEFINITELY a strip by Api. I was at the game and didn't see it clearly as it was distantly on the screen. Anyway...
 
It really is a lottery.... Last Wednesday the touchy was calling to the ref "player held up" on a try scoring situation despite replays showing with the bodies in between him and the ball there's no way on earth he could've seen what happened... Yet he still added his two bobs worth which was a guess
 
watersider said:
There is a significant problem with the integrity of the game at the moment caused by the intervention of video referees on matches. This has been discussed a lot and widely commented on in the media, but the influence of the video referee continues to increase.

Looking at Api's supposed strip, I just can't see how that can be ruled as such. The referee on the field called it a knock on, Api goes to tackle the player and tackles him, in doing so he hits the ball and it comes out. Earlier in the game a Raiders players shoulder dislodges the ball from Klemmer's grasp, forcing a knock on. Both are just excellent tackles and loose carries by the players. But the microscopic surveillance of the game by the video ref is making every play strangely tentative and uncertain. And the issue that gets to me is that at times the video referee appears to play more the passive observer role and at other times goes into full interventionalist mode.

I've seen tackles like Api's reviewed in the past and just called a knock on. Yes, there's contact with the ball, but he's also making the tackle and the referee has made a call and there's little reason to overturn it.

But then at other times, like for instance the infamous Cowboys and Tigers game, the video referee seems to be even anticipating the call and identifying a problem and intervening and interpreting a play in a way that demands understanding of a player's intention.

So in the horrible shepherding call, the player is running towards the ball with eyes for the ball, but the video referee assumes that he is running in a particular way that can be seen to be deliberately obstructing the opposing player. You can't see it in the action of the player, but the video referee intervenes and interprets it that way. In the Api decision last night, Api makes a tackle and successfully tackles a player, with his arm movement wrapping the player up, but the vide referee interprets his arm movement as a deliberate stripping action in the more traditional sense, rather than incidental contact. It just is going too far. We know what ripping at the ball looks like, there's no need to protect ball carriers from errors in the way the video referee did.

Then the video referee sees no indiscretion in the push in the back on Brooks for the Raiders third try. Perhaps that was or wasn't a penalty, but I've also seen those plays called back by a more interventionalist video referee.

It therefore is just a lottery when the video referee intervenes. Will we be getting the passive, omniscient observer who allows for the game to play out? Or, will we get the interventionalist interpretive video referee whose judgement depends not only on endless slow motion replays, but also assumptions about player intention that goes beyond simple actions that occur on the field.

Underneath all of that I would offer a deeper conspiracy of a sort of subconscious bias in which good teams and organisations get the benefit of good intentions, where struggling clubs tend to get closely examined and scrutinised for every action, so that a push in the back is incidental by one club, but is malicious by another; that a loose carry is a knock on by one club but a strip by another; that a player moving towards the ball is legal for one team, but shepherding for another.

So at the heart of matches these days is a shifting and unstable decision making process that I have no confidence in. For all the benefits it provides, I do not believe it is improving the quality of officiating in matches. I do not like the video referee system.
Click to expand...
"....no confidence in. For all the benefits it provides, I do not believe it is improving the quality of officiating in matches. I do not like the video referee system."

I'm with you.
 
Just watched Annesleys review of the second Fogerty try and Brooks getting pushed in the back. He says it should have been no try and penalty to WT.
Another dud call, why do always seem to be on the end of them.
Too late now but when you see TS getting stroppy , you know why. Can mean the difference between a win or loss.
That, combined with Raiders laying all over the ruck was enough to make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 272 (members: 3, guests: 269)
Back
Top