PDA

View Full Version : Magic weekend video refs



Laner
15th February 2011, 12:38
Was it just me or does anybody else think that the "video refs" made some terrible decisions over the weekend? Shentons "try" and Leeds penalty try being the two main points, but there were other decisions as well. Is it the calibre of the video refs, do they see too many angles, do they bttle out of making the correct decisions?

paulscnthorpe
15th February 2011, 13:00
i honestly think they must watch the match on a 14" portable in a caravan, it's not just the decisions, it's the length of time they take to come up with them.. a good example was on the shenton no try, he took an age to decide whether or not wheeler had knocked on, when it was clear as day from the first replay it's hit his shoulder, gone down his back and hit tomkins' hand. i think there was enough doubt to disallow shenton's, it was a 50/50 call..

couple of my head though, chev walker's should never have been disallowed, he kicks it, it bounces off bishop (?) and hits him on the elbow, with him making no play towards it, so for me that's play on.. i also thought that radford knocked the ball on for his try, and it appears to be creeping in where it doesn't matter if you drop the ball in flight when diving in, as long as your hand is on the ball as it hits the ground.. to me the acid test is take the ground away, would he still have control, you'd have to say not.

i've no issues with that being awarded a penalty try to leeds if penalty tries were given out more often.. i've seen players had the ball ripped out two on one over the tryline, and still no penalty try given, simply a penalty..

but once again it's the inconsistency of everything

hazzo21
15th February 2011, 14:16
hits him on the elbow, with him making no play towards it, so for me that's play on..
I thought it didnt really matter if you deliberately mean to knock it on or not. The fact it hit is arm and went forward means it is a knock-on I think.

Also, I agree on Shenton's 'try' that even if Wheeler gets the benefit of the doubt then there is still more uncertainty over whether or not Dixon knocks the ball on. I certainly dont think he tried to offload it as suggested by the commentators.

I also reckon it was a penalty try although I agree with you in that they are not given out on a consistent basis. The referee/video ref does not need to be 100% certain that is was a try (you can nver be 100% sure until the try is actually scored!!) they just need to decide 'if in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team'. In my opinion this was certainly the case on Sunday

bazdev
15th February 2011, 19:01
Was it just me or does anybody else think that the "video refs" made some terrible decisions over the weekend? Shentons "try" and Leeds penalty try being the two main points, but there were other decisions as well. Is it the calibre of the video refs, do they see too many angles, do they bttle out of making the correct decisions?

Both decisions were correct I thought. On the Saints one, he didn't try to offload he hit the floor, the ball come out in a forwards motion and the Leeds one was a certain try for me

johnnyl
15th February 2011, 19:11
I thought it didnt really matter if you deliberately mean to knock it on or not. The fact it hit is arm and went forward means it is a knock-on I think.


Thats how I see it. Theminute a forward travelling ball hits the floor you are no longer claiming a forward pass but a knock on. No problem at all with the decision.

Private Pyle
15th February 2011, 19:11
Both decisions were correct I thought. On the Saints one, he didn't try to offload he hit the floor, the ball come out in a forwards motion and the Leeds one was a certain try for me

I actually agree with the pie. I need a lie down

reliable sauce
15th February 2011, 19:15
Both decisions were correct I thought. On the Saints one, he didn't try to offload he hit the floor, the ball come out in a forwards motion and the Leeds one was a certain try for me

I agree mate, although i didn't want the Leeds try be awarded as it was so cruel on Bradford and Leeds have done this many time in the past, Wakefield springs to mind.

Wanderer
15th February 2011, 19:40
Both decisions were correct I thought. On the Saints one, he didn't try to offload he hit the floor, the ball come out in a forwards motion and the Leeds one was a certain try for me
I disagree on Andrew Dixon's effort. By the motion of his arm he is moving the ball out and back. The problem is, deciding on video whether the ball is going forward is risky. There wasn't an accurate enough angle to judge, even though Sky's camera coverage is superb. I don't think the Leeds' try was a certain one but it was more likely than not, which is all that the ref needs to call for a penalty try anyway. I just hate the thought that Leeds sneaked a jammy one, especially given that one of their tries - as always - came off a blatently forward pass.

southernsaint7
15th February 2011, 19:59
the one I'd question is where tomkins uses a boot to dislodge the ball out/stop roby grounding the ball...i thought using the boot in this manner had been outlawed? or is that just in aus?

saintgeorge
15th February 2011, 20:06
the one I'd question is where tomkins uses a boot to dislodge the ball out/stop roby grounding the ball...i thought using the boot in this manner had been outlawed? or is that just in aus?
If you watch it again he actually dislodges the ball with his hand - he misses with his boot.

brook
15th February 2011, 21:58
I think the leeds one was fair enough,he was odds on to score if he handt of been tackled and the other bradfor players were not close enough to affect it,im still dubious about the shenton one.

Div
15th February 2011, 22:16
I dont think the Magic weekend was any different to other weeks they do seem to make a number of bizzare decisions.

southernsaint7
15th February 2011, 23:15
If you watch it again he actually dislodges the ball with his hand - he misses with his boot.

fair enough, only saw it on the screen and thought u werent allowed to slide in and use the feet

forward ref
16th February 2011, 10:06
If you watch it again he actually dislodges the ball with his hand - he misses with his boot.

Therefore it should have been a penalty try, as there was more than one in the tackle.

I'm sure Bazdev will have some reason why it shouldn't have been.

Laner
16th February 2011, 11:21
I dont think the Magic weekend was any different to other weeks they do seem to make a number of bizzare decisions.

I think that is my point rather than the rights and wrongs of specific incidents. Are the video refs really helping the game when even with the multiple camera angles, slow mos, etc, they still seem to come up with bizzare or plainly wrong decisions.

saintgeorge
16th February 2011, 11:32
If you concede that our equalising try was from a forward pass then I suppose over the course of the game justice was done.

superdom
16th February 2011, 11:46
If you concede that our equalising try was from a forward pass then I suppose over the course of the game justice was done.

That was momentum!!!!!

:rolleyes:

The Verminator
16th February 2011, 11:53
The worst decision of the weekend was Chev Walker's disallowed try when he was adjudged to have knocked on. Looking for reasons to disallow instead of give the try.

hazzo21
16th February 2011, 12:05
The worst decision of the weekend was Chev Walker's disallowed try when he was adjudged to have knocked on. Looking for reasons to disallow instead of give the try.
How was it wrong when it hit his arm/elbow and went forward? That is a knock-on whether deliberate or not.
It may have been unlucky but unfortunately they are the rules.

Woodsy79
16th February 2011, 12:21
I seem to be in the minority here but Shentons no try was a try imo. You can quite clearly see the movement of Dixons arm that he is attempting to off-load as it is still the last tackle and even if it goes forward the VR can not disallow for that reason. Had he landed on top of the ball and it squeezed out then fair enough but you can quite clearly see that he is attempting a flick pass, therefore you cannot judge that to be a knock on.

hazzo21
16th February 2011, 12:53
I seem to be in the minority here but Shentons no try was a try imo. You can quite clearly see the movement of Dixons arm that he is attempting to off-load as it is still the last tackle and even if it goes forward the VR can not disallow for that reason. Had he landed on top of the ball and it squeezed out then fair enough but you can quite clearly see that he is attempting a flick pass, therefore you cannot judge that to be a knock on.
I dont think there is any way you can argue that it is 'quite clearly' an attempted off load. If it was quite clear then there would be no debate.
Unfortunately it was one of those moments that is not clear either way and therefore there will always be opinions for and against awarding a try. Ultimately the video ref has his own opinion and that is the only one that matters!
I personally think he knocked on but that is only my opinion.

The Verminator
16th February 2011, 12:57
How was it wrong when it hit his arm/elbow and went forward? That is a knock-on whether deliberate or not.
It may have been unlucky but unfortunately they are the rules.

He didn't make a play for it. Play on, for me anyway.

Div
16th February 2011, 12:58
Huddersfield had a try chalked off fora knock on that I couldnt see as well.

paulscnthorpe
16th February 2011, 13:00
He didn't make a play for it. Play on, for me anyway.

exactly, put a different spin on it had a player been going into touch and kicked it, hitting a player on his arm, without making a play for the ball, and then the ball going in touch, whose scrum would it be?

hazzo21
16th February 2011, 14:05
exactly, put a different spin on it had a player been going into touch and kicked it, hitting a player on his arm, without making a play for the ball, and then the ball going in touch, whose scrum would it be?
The scrum would go to the defending team as he hadnt made a play at the ball, the difference here being that an opposing player has kicked the ball directly at him.
From what I can remember of the Walker incident, the ball was initially kicked through by Walker and then as the ball bounced up the ball touched Walker's arm. I cant remember the incident 100%, so if that is wrong I apologise.
Another way of thinking about it, if an attacking player threw a pass out to a team mate but the ball inadvertently hit another player on the arm and went forward, if another attacking player picked the ball up and scored (providing he was behind the player to start with) then surely this would be brought back for a knock on.

The Yellow Giraffe
16th February 2011, 14:07
He didn't make a play for it. Play on, for me anyway.

Since when were knock-ons intentional? If it hit his arm and went in a forward motion, then it is classed as a knock-on, regardless of intent.

brook
16th February 2011, 14:18
If you dont intentionally play at the ball and it hits you and goes into touch you no longer concede the scrum,shouldnt it be if you dont intentionally knock on ( like chev ) then you get to play on ? seems odd how you can have one and not the other

The Yellow Giraffe
16th February 2011, 14:29
If you dont intentionally play at the ball and it hits you and goes into touch you no longer concede the scrum,shouldnt it be if you dont intentionally knock on ( like chev ) then you get to play on ? seems odd how you can have one and not the other

I can see your logic but when it comes to knock-ons, intent is not a necessity. It would too much of a grey area when it comes to video ref decisions.

hazzo21
16th February 2011, 14:33
If you dont intentionally play at the ball and it hits you and goes into touch you no longer concede the scrum,shouldnt it be if you dont intentionally knock on ( like chev ) then you get to play on ? seems odd how you can have one and not the other

Nobody intentionally knocks-on so by that ruling you would get rid of them altogether!!!
The difference between the Chev incident and the hypothetical ball going into touch from an opposing kick is that Chev made the first kick through and was going forward in an attacking play and gained an advantage by the ball hitting his arm (whether intentional or not). When an attacking player boots the ball at you from a yard away then you cant really move out of the way and hence why in this instance the attacking team do not get an unfair advantage.

hazzo21
16th February 2011, 14:55
If you dont intentionally play at the ball and it hits you and goes into touch you no longer concede the scrum,shouldnt it be if you dont intentionally knock on ( like chev ) then you get to play on ? seems odd how you can have one and not the other
Because I am a bit sad (and work is boring!!) I have just had a quick look at the official laws of the game and in respect of the Chev incident I think the following applies
''If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed. Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.''
I think that Chev did accidentally knock-on but as the ball then hit the floor/player (cant remember which) then play shall stop.
For the point about the kick eventually going into touch
''In all aspects of general play, a player who does not deliberately play at the ball (eg. ricochet or rebound) will not be disadvantaged by a consequent restart of
play when the ball has gone dead or into touch''
Anyway, best get some work done...

The Yellow Giraffe
16th February 2011, 15:14
Because I am a bit sad

For anyone in any doubt, I can concur. :wink:

Buddy
16th February 2011, 15:30
Why is everyone surprised we couldn't trust Ian Smith to make a correct decision?

Barney Rubble
16th February 2011, 16:19
I seem to be in the minority here but Shentons no try was a try imo. You can quite clearly see the movement of Dixons arm that he is attempting to off-load as it is still the last tackle and even if it goes forward the VR can not disallow for that reason. Had he landed on top of the ball and it squeezed out then fair enough but you can quite clearly see that he is attempting a flick pass, therefore you cannot judge that to be a knock on.I see it that way but Ive been told i only see it like that because i'm biased.