WiganWarriorsFans.com

I remember when league was a fast flowing game.... Tonight was a joke a ref who could not make a clear decission with the help of a video ref

thewhitepearl wrote:I remember when league was a fast flowing game.... Tonight was a joke a ref who could not make a clear decission with the help of a video ref

Agreed it needs to be looked at, for me all 3 obstruction no tries should have been tries.

Offside, grounding and knock ons should be the only video ref feature imo.

The rules on obstruction need to be looked at as in the game last night at Salford, some resulted in tries being disallowed when they were no different than the two obsructions which resulted in tries for Leeds in the game at Castleford.

It is imo making a mockery of the game as it is making it look that there is one rule for some teams and another rule for other teams.

TonyH wrote:Offside, grounding and knock ons should be the only video ref feature imo.

A ref should not subsequently ask VR to check on something he has already ruled on, as in the possible knock on at PTB leading to our try!

I've had concerns about the video ref for quite a while. What I don't know, but suspect no-one else does either, is whether the decisions made in non-televised games have been any less reliable. Having an in-goal judge as well has improved accuracy, so why not have them for every game.

No-one argues when the video ref is asked to rule on a matter of fact. Was it a 40-20? Was the player offside at the kick? Did the player actualy put a foot in touch? etc. But an obstruction in the high speed dynamics of a game is nigh on impossible.
John Wells argues very eloquently that common sense is denying perfectly good tries for a pedantic interpretation of the obstruction rule, which while correct has nothing to do with the scoring of a try.

My suggestion would be for the referee to award the try or not, but allow the captains of each team 2 (unsuccesful) appeals. They'd only appeal when they genuinely thought there was a problem. Otherwise the on field referee should only use the video ref for matters of fact as above.

What we can't do is take the money from SKY and then complain when their coverage shows we are getting it wrong.

Other than having two refs on the field during a match and golden point do the Aussies operate under a totally different set of rules to us? I've watched the NRL games on premier sports and you don't find 10 minutes or so being added on to their games while they refer almost every decision to the video ref so do they not have obstruction rules and the like or do they just take a more liberal view of reffing the game because every little fumble doesn't seem to get penalised as a knock on either.

Is it just me, or are our referees getting worse. I thought than when they went professional things would improve. Personally I would have two refs, one in each half and do away with the refs assistants who run the line and are totally none existent

ddtftf wrote:Is it just me, or are our referees getting worse. I thought than when they went professional things would improve. Personally I would have two refs, one in each half and do away with the refs assistants who run the line and are totally none existent

Do you mean do away with Touchjudjes, dd ?

If so, who would rule on all touchline decisions and mark the defensive 10 metres ?

Probably the way to go would be to have 2 refs as they do in the NRL, where they can patrol each and every ptb, and hopefully clean up that area.

TJ's probably look ineffective, but have to remember they are in continuous communication with the ref, so are actually making decisions all the time - just that you can't see or hear it !

Deffo need TJ's they help a lot with the man in the middle over intercom for who is offside and when a kicker is cleared etc.