'Very often'......I totally accept the 'can't see sufficient evidence' but not that 'VR can see the ref has made an error' - can you give an example ? (To my mind it seems that the VR can't see FOR CERTAIN that the ref has made an error without having sufficient evidence)Originally Posted by Belgian Saint
It's more a case of "very likely/on the balance of probabilities" the ref's made an error but, as some of these decisions are a little open to interpretation, they're not categoric.
Example:
A player being stood well in front the kicker who chases a grubber and scores is clear cut* so the VR can overrule.
The obstruction decision on Friday against Leigh is more problematic. I reckon 99% of non-pie fans reckon it wasn't obstruction. But there's not a line that can be physically drawn like with offside. The ref called it obstruction - because they are forced to give a decision - but the VR you feel couldn't say with absolute, 100% certainty that it wasn't so didn't feel able to overrule.
However, if the ref had referred the try to the VR without any decision, I'm hugely sure the VR would have ruled it a try.
And that's the problem. Few are that arsed for most rounds in SL, because there's not a massive amount riding on the result. But on Friday, the ramifications were major, potentially dictating where the SL trophy goes. If the scum win it, then they'll have been helped by a wrong crucial decision going their way.
* unless it's a Leeds player against Saints in a Grand Final...
He's not the Messiah, he's a naughty boy.
I can see what you are saying, and the point is well made. It probably comes down to if the VR should make decisions on something being very likely / on the balance of probabilities - which is not something I'd personally want. (Would it need to be 99%, 75%, 51% ?) I'm still of the opinion that regardless of the situation we need certainty to change a decision. If something is open to interpretation then I'd happily stick with the ref's (which will on occasions be wrong - but maybe not as often as some fans think).
It's not supposition at all,it's been seen to happen.There should be proof a try is scored but we see them given because a ref has given it as a try even though he hasn't seen it,the video ref can't see it because of obstructive views yet the try stands. How many times have we come to the end of a game and all we talk about is the video ref and the wrong calls ? Now i accept there will be errors,refs will always make them and always will.But the current system the way it is now can at certain times add an error on top of an error.
There have been polls done on various fan sites and facebook and discord groups and the polls show the majority want rid of the refs call. Talk to fans of other teams when you see them and they will tell you they don't like it. Same with the six again rule,most fans hate that but we seem to be stuck with it ( but that's a whole new kettle of fish to poke around with )
Anyway,i would just like to say it's nice to have a reasoned debate with someone without it turning into name calling and other such stuff.
I take the point about Facebook groups etc, although would question what % of fans they represent.
We may disagree on some things but I can agree with your final sentiments - a reasoned debate is, to me, what this forum should be about and it's always enlightening to hear an alternative viewpoint....
The 'try' or 'no try' thing needs to go.
They're guessing most of the time.
'Is there any reason for me to disallow this try following tackle x or the kick or the lost ball' etc
Said it plenty of times. Go with the union calls of 'try: yes or no' or 'is there any reason why I can't award the try'. Typical of rugby league to pioneer something that everyone else adopts and us still use it worse than everyone else!
Forwards win games. The backs decide by how much.
Interesting day at the bottom of the championship. Keighley have ended up being relegated due to points difference only 3 worse than Whitehaven. Talk about the barest of margins!
Forwards win games. The backs decide by how much.
And well done to Swinton for surviving and for keeping Halifax out of the play-offs. York sneaked into the top 6 as a result.
The video ref in the union world cup is putting ours to shame. The way they review trys,the way they review fouls the ref has missed,the yellow card reviews. All clearly explained and easy to understand.
The NRL uses the "try confirmed" system as well. Basically even after ref has awarded try if anything is noticed on video it can be checked and ruled out.
I don’t have the memory to bring specific incidents into it but I have seen a couple of times where the Ref has said held up and on one of the video angles the ball looks down, then the VR focuses on the angle where you can’t see it down. Also remember one incident of a winger on the touchline, where from one angle from directly in line, you could see him touch the line and the VR looked 4-5 times ar an angle that was not in line with the winger/ try line.
In your first example it seems to me that the VR was correct. If it 'looks down' that means that it is not certain and so the VR looked for further / better evidence in order to give the decision. To my mind you can't have the VR assuming / guessing, you need certainty.
In the second example it appears to me to be an occasion when the VR got it wrong - as if from the first angle 'you could see him touch the line' then that is certainty and the decision should have been given regardless of the ref's try / no try.
No system is perfect, before the technology we almost accepted the refs call at that was the end of the matter .
Maybe we need to adopt the NFL definition of "Touchdown" they don't actually ground the ball as long as they cross the line is a score.
Seems comical at first thought but it would be same for both sides ��
And second, third, fourth . . . . . thought.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Genuine question because I honestly don’t have a clue… Does the ‘flop’ rule still actually exist? Dont think I have seen it applied all year, but they’re happening in every single game
Probably see one given against us on Saturday now youve mentioned it
Have to agree with your conclusion brook.
Ive just watched a video emerging of Derek Beaumont address Leigh fans after the game .. I wonder if he'll do what he's threatened? Basically threatened to walk away from something he thinks uninvestable unless radical changes.... believes they were robbed of a home semi
It's on Rugby League Fans Facebook.
Make your own minds up.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/589206...2953359522102/
I didn’t hear him complain when in the cup semi final ritson was taken out off the ball and a try was awarded. Nor did he complain when Two of our players were crippled with a dirty tackle.
It’s that sort of irrational, knee-jerk behaviour from Beaumont, along with when he ripped up contracts mid-year and put the clubs future in question, that would make me uneasy if he was the owner of our club.
St Helens Rugby League Football Club
I think it's just an attempt to bank some good favour. Watch them get two or three 'interesting' calls their way against Hull KR.
He was embarrassing when he came over to our place. Should imagine McManus has struck him off the Xmas card list the way he behaved and ranted near our VIP's and sponsors.
Got away with plenty high shots at Wembley I thought.
I think that "class" can be measured in how one reacts in defeat rather than victory, which tells you all you need to know about this man. An absolute scumbag. Typical bully boy who rants and raves if he doesn't get his own way. Personally I hate folk like that and would be pleased if he left our sport, investment not withstanding. I'm sure that despite his success at Leigh many of their faithful would be glad to see him go and take his self promotional leopard skin with him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote