Referees and video refs.

[stevethegas]

Having sorted tickets for Wembley and allowed the dust to settle after Sunday, I did some thinking about the issues of refereeing decisions and the issues that many people commented on after the game. It wasn't James Child's best, but then he's not alone. Another thread in this section (Game of Groans, qv) suggests all is not well in the Antipodes either.

So after some thought, I chuck in some ideas for discussion.

First, and above all, let's not forget that referees are human, and by definition will make mistakes. The massive advantage we have over football is that there are generally enough scoring opportunities to dilute the odd error.
But, as the hedgehog said as it climbed off the yard brush, "We all make mistakes".
Please let's not pillory them over the occasional error. They don't do it on purpose.

In a televised game of course, you might think we'd get it right more often, but it seems to me that the video ref. is so hamstrung with rules, that they can no longer apply common sense.

For example, to suggest that the video can't be used on a forward pass is just ludicrous. Of course they can. Whether they should or not is a separate issue. But it seems to me that if they can disallow a try for some theoretical obstruction which anyone can see had no effect whatsoever on the actual event, then they ought to be able to judge a forward pass. Both events occur very fast and should be viewed in real time.

You might have thought that the onfield ref saying a try or not before handing it upstairs would mean they would be supported unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. But Burgess had one overturned though his forearm was clearly still in contact with the ball, and the try given on field. Difficult to understand.

Again I feel too hamstrung by regulations.

We could go on and on about examples we've all seen.

I believe the way forward is to allow the defending captain a couple of appeals, much as in Cricket or Tennis. Get it right and you don't lose one. So appeal for the right reasons, or accept the on field ref's decision.

And allow the video ref. to use common sense discretion in far more aspects of how the game is ruled. At the moment it's too artificial and doesn't do us the favours it was expected to bring.

[moto748]

Don't disagree. I said elsewhere that it seems to me that Thaler denied the Burgess try cos he didn't think it was a try, even though arguably he exceeded his brief in doing so. Personally I would be fine with the onfield ref saying to the VR, in effect, I'm not sure; you decide, and let the VR exercise his judgment. He is the best one to judge. But that is not how the rules are drafted at the moment.

On forward passes: the VR can rule on them in RU, so I don't see why they can't in league.

[Nezza Faz]

Don't disagree. I said elsewhere that it seems to me that Thaler denied the Burgess try cos he didn't think it was a try, even though arguably he exceeded his brief in doing so. Personally I would be fine with the onfield ref saying to the VR, in effect, I'm not sure; you decide, and let the VR exercise his judgment. He is the best one to judge. But that is not how the rules are drafted at the moment.

On forward passes: the VR can rule on them in RU, so I don't see why they can't in league.

The controversial part of his turning down the try, and you can hear it in his summing up, was saying I THINK he's lost the ball (not 'definitely')

The remit of the VR is to go with the on field decision, unless he can clearly and definitively (not "thinkingly!") go against the Referee's decision by finding different evidence to back up the reversed decision.

Clearly with this one, something has gone badly wrong with the whole decision making process.

[Wigan_forever1985]

I think we have made a rod for our own back with the technology, personally i think we should give the ref's a helping hand by editing the remit of the video ref.

Firstly id get rid of the slow motion, i think it completely distorts the view of events, you could keep it for just grounding of the ball but even then just let it run at full speed unless its an offside then offer a freeze frame on the kick, they will balance out after a while this incessant need to see frame by frame is what get most people irate.

Id also limit the ref to either 30 seconds of 5 views, again the constant back and forth between shots is what gets people annoyed and we still arent getting "conclusive" results all the time now. If you cant overturn the decision off 5 views then let it run.

Id actually go one step further i would get rid of video ref referrals from the referee. Id let the on field ref make the choice and then id give both teams 3 challenges like in tennis, if they successfully challenge they keep them if unsuccessful they lose them. This would hopefully promote honesty in the players on whether they grounded it or not.

[BriH]

I think we have made a rod for our own back with the technology, personally i think we should give the ref's a helping hand by editing the remit of the video ref.

Firstly id get rid of the slow motion, i think it completely distorts the view of events, you could keep it for just grounding of the ball but even then just let it run at full speed unless its an offside then offer a freeze frame on the kick, they will balance out after a while this incessant need to see frame by frame is what get most people irate.

Id also limit the ref to either 30 seconds of 5 views, again the constant back and forth between shots is what gets people annoyed and we still arent getting "conclusive" results all the time now. If you cant overturn the decision off 5 views then let it run.

Id actually go one step further i would get rid of video ref referrals from the referee. Id let the on field ref make the choice and then id give both teams 3 challenges like in tennis, if they successfully challenge they keep them if unsuccessful they lose them. This would hopefully promote honesty in the players on whether they grounded it or not.

Well argued.

[markill]

I'm on board with the captains challenge idea in theory. I think that the NFL had it best, before they then changed it a bit a couple of years ago.

The mainstay system had been:
- 2 challenges per team, but if both were correct you got to get an extra challenge
- in the last 2 minutes of each half all contentious decisions are referred by the video replay officials watching the game. (the theory being, events at those times are harder to come back from / less likely to even out, so more significant - and, it also helps that more people might be watching at that important time of the game so broadcasters might get more money for the adverts they show!)

Now, they check all scoring plays and all turnovers, but due to the stop start way that game is played and due to the money/technology they had implemented where all decisions could be monitored by a video official immediately, it works ok for them.

The first bit can be adapted to our game I feel, with a slight adjustment. So, on any call where the play ends, the coach or more likely captain can initiate a review challenge - 2 goes at it, but the last one rolling if you haven't lost any challenge. In the last 5 or maybe 10 minutes of the game, I would let the coaches challenge line calls on kicks etc, but any scoring challenge should be raised by the match officials, so teams don't need to challenge.

[Rochdale Warrior]

Just watching Syd v NQL , very similar try , sorry no try , to Bugies on Sunday , on field ref gave try , video ref took two looks 15secs ," no sufficient evidence to overrule on field decision TRY " that's how it should be used Aussie video ref far better , they are quick and make a decision without countless replays ,

[moto748]

Well, quite. Our system gets so much criticism, but they use pretty much the same system in the NRL; why does it work better there?

1. They have more camera angles (and clearer freeze frames)

2. By and large, they don't faff around as much as ours and get the decision made much quicker.

3. They stick (for better or worse) to the guidelines (which Thaler didn't do), hence the "insufficient evidence to overturn".

I'd like to see an option where the ref says, I haven't got a Scooby, and the VR makes the call as he sees fit. But we don't have that right now.

[Rochdale Warrior]

Also one guy seems to do most games , think he is in the TV studio not the game as he does one game straight after another, he is very good

[moto748]

It's not just one guy, but the same people do all the games.