ref

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob refereeing is simple and you and your cohort want to try to make it overly complicated. Why is it that every poster here can see it is simple for 1 the referee to be dealing with what happens downfield of the kick and the touchjudge to be looking at the point of the kick. It is impossible for one person to watch both at the same time.

Honestly, refereeing can be as simple or as complicated as you want to make it.

There is also a direct link between those that think it's simple and those that have never refereed above U12s.

So what happens when you give 'watching the kicker' duties to the nearside TJ and his view is obstructed? Kicker gets his head taken off, play-on!

[robjoenz]

Matthew posted:
For televised matches, why not have the video ref (or one of his assistants from sky) watch the kicker to see if he is taken late. He could then also make the call whether it should involve a sanction for the player involved.

As far as I am aware the Video Ref doesn't do anything else unless asked to by the Ref. The game normally has to stop after a late hit on the kicker for the downed player to receive treatment anyway

I'm undecided on what my opinion is with regards to the video referee. I don't know whether they should maintain the same input they have now because increasing input may make the game a more stop-start affair OR whether I want to see every little thing spotted which would give us a much tidier game. I can't decide.

[Matthew]

robjoenz posted:
I'm undecided on what my opinion is with regards to the video referee. I don't know whether they should maintain the same input they have now because increasing input may make the game a more stop-start affair OR whether I want to see every little thing spotted which would give us a much tidier game. I can't decide.

Well provided the they don't use it like they did for a time in American Football - where the game was stopped every couple of minutes, then I don't think that it will be a problem.

The Video ref is linked to the on field ref by radio - so surely it would make sense that if a piece of foul play goes unnoticed, then the video ref says:

"Wilkin hit Thorman late and high, recommendation penalty and red card" etc

The ref then blows up and tells the player what has been seen and what the punishment is.

This way players would be paranoid of getting caught so it would be less likely to be a part of their strategy and hopefully filter out of the game.

The Video ref could also comment on blatant missed high shots and any fights that break out.

[cpwigan]

Oddly Rob I was told refereeing was very simple by a referee that refereed football admittedly to the highest levels. My family on my fathers side including myself have been involved in sports for 75+ years. Something several people also told me with far more knowledge that you or I have was that you can always tell which officials have played sport and which have not.

In life and you will learn this, everybody who has been successful be it in business, be it in sport will say the same thing time abnd time again, KEEP IT SIMPLE. The great businessmen, the great coaches all say, do not bullshit me, do not try to confuse me, if we want to achieve X we do Y.

Slightly off from kick challenges, have you any idea what effort and practice it takes for players to create set plays / moves that involve dummy runners and yet officials are now trying to destroy the most outstanding attacking play possible for what? Cummings calls it the British way - that is utter bullshit, ask Cummings what that means? it's a bullshit statement. You want to know what the British way of playing RL is? it's what was happening in the NRL 5 years ago. There is no British way, there is no Australian way, there is no French way. Modern rugby league at its best is about having players active and offering a pass option or a decoy versus well drilled defences. Australian clubs do it better, St Helens do it better than the rest of SL. So your glorious leader is saying I want to stop the highest quality RL in favour of what? RL from the dark ages? There is no such thing as the British way. There is no referee who can calculate whether 6 statements are true / false before awarding a penalty. Stop swallowing manuals Rob and think for yourself. It may curtail your professional aspirations but you will retain your self respect.

[damien morrissey]

robjoenz posted:

Matthew posted:
For televised matches, why not have the video ref (or one of his assistants from sky) watch the kicker to see if he is taken late. He could then also make the call whether it should involve a sanction for the player involved.

As far as I am aware the Video Ref doesn't do anything else unless asked to by the Ref. The game normally has to stop after a late hit on the kicker for the downed player to receive treatment anyway

I'm undecided on what my opinion is with regards to the video referee. I don't know whether they should maintain the same input they have now because increasing input may make the game a more stop-start affair OR whether I want to see every little thing spotted which would give us a much tidier game. I can't decide.

Rob if the player is hit late then he is going to be down injured the play will be stopped for the treatment of the injury and at this time the video ref can pass on what he has seen.
If it is proving so hard to sort couldnt we outlaw attacks/ challenges on kickers. If you want to attack the ball fine if in the process you touch the kicker then off you go. It seems a little strong but it will quickly cut this danger out and as posted the offending team will lose a player rather than the offended side.

[right cross]

yeh your right cpwigan, keep it simple .for me to many wrong decisions made by them :conf: , i say GET RID OF THEM ? then there is only one simpleton in the middle not two

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Oddly Rob I was told refereeing was very simple by a referee that refereed football admittedly to the highest levels. My family on my fathers side including myself have been involved in sports for 75+ years. Something several people also told me with far more knowledge that you or I have was that you can always tell which officials have played sport and which have not.

In life and you will learn this, everybody who has been successful be it in business, be it in sport will say the same thing time abnd time again, KEEP IT SIMPLE. The great businessmen, the great coaches all say, do not bullshit me, do not try to confuse me, if we want to achieve X we do Y.

I know I'm only 25 but I do have some life experience, you know cp

I am a firm believer of keeping things simple, however, if simple doesn't work you have to add a layer of complexity or come up with contingencies / defence in depth. You've got to find the right trade off between simplicity / ease of use and added value of the extra complexity.

Dictate set roles in this instance and things will be missed, tell all officials to look for what they can and you have more chance of capturing everything that occurs (there is still chance that things will slip through though).

[robjoenz]

damien morrissey posted:
If it is proving so hard to sort couldnt we outlaw attacks/ challenges on kickers. If you want to attack the ball fine if in the process you touch the kicker then off you go. It seems a little strong but it will quickly cut this danger out and as posted the offending team will lose a player rather than the offended side.

You have virtually described the current rule there mate.

As soon as the ball carrier lets go of the ball to kick it he becomes the kicker. As a kicker he no longer has posession of the ball and as such if he is intentionally challenged, it's a penalty and a sin-binning. You have allow some leeway if the challenger was making a tackle whilst the player had the ball though. If the intentional challenge on a kicker is high, it's a red card.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Slightly off from kick challenges, have you any idea what effort and practice it takes for players to create set plays / moves that involve dummy runners and yet officials are now trying to destroy the most outstanding attacking play possible for what?

I don't think it will continue to the levels it did on Sunday, however, I think there'll be more obstructions given this season than last.

It's something the coaches have said they want clamped down on. The use of dummy runners to deliberately obstruct defences. It depends how the dummy runner is used, if they are used intentionally to take out defenders / stop them being able to make a tackle then it should be penalised. Zero tolerance was used on Sunday, it just needs to be toned down a bit.

With respects to all the effort and practice put in though cp, someone wants to tell them to keep it simple. No doubt they'll learn this as they progress towards your age

[damien morrissey]

robjoenz posted:

damien morrissey posted:
If it is proving so hard to sort couldnt we outlaw attacks/ challenges on kickers. If you want to attack the ball fine if in the process you touch the kicker then off you go. It seems a little strong but it will quickly cut this danger out and as posted the offending team will lose a player rather than the offended side.

You have virtually described the current rule there mate.

As soon as the ball carrier lets go of the ball to kick it he becomes the kicker. As a kicker he no longer has posession of the ball and as such if he is intentionally challenged, it's a penalty and a sin-binning. You have allow some leeway if the challenger was making a tackle whilst the player had the ball though. If the intentional challenge on a kicker is high, it's a red card.

If he touches the player he is off. It is a fast paced game but it takes out this wishy washy did he mean to give the kicker concusion in a head high tackle or did he just mean to flatten him in a late but legit tackle.
It may even make the game more interesting if you cant tackle the kicker then you create an edge in attack.
I still dont understand why under the rule you have stated Wilikin was right to get a sin bin not a red. He hit the player late whether he intended it or not those are the facts. If the intentional challenge on a kicker is high, it's a red card.
"If the intentional challenge on a kicker is high, it's a red card."
Wilkin might not of intended to be high but he was red card.
OR NOT.