B.V.R.- Before the Video Referee

[Hamm.0]

Ok, this poll isn't, is the video referee bad, do we use it too much, do we use it when we don't need to, does he take too long to make decisions.

The question is; have you seen horrendous decisions, pre video ref, that when watched in slow motion were definetly not the way the ref called it.

 

[Fozz]

I don't recall, your Honour. Can barely remember my phone number.

 

[Black Philip]

From what I remember from the pre video ref days, not only was the game not slowed down from this, most Refs got the majority of their calls right.

Perhaps the problem these days is a poor standard of refereeing ?

 

[The Brizz]

From what I remember from the pre video ref days, not only was the game not slowed down from this, most Refs got the majority of their calls right.

Perhaps the problem these days is a poor standard of refereeing ?

I think you got it in one.

 

[ronnyd]

Thats is a horribly worded question!!!

 

[Jeba]

There were definately some shockers but that's the human element in the game. The thing about the video ref these days is they often take 3 or 4 looks from every possible angle and still get it wrong, ala State of Origin 3, 2006.

 

[Natalie]

I think refs have become complacent, if they're not sure on something then they can just go to the video rather than trusting their own knowledge and ruling on it. In saying that, the video ref is good because you can almost be 100% sure that you're getting the right decision. I think that videos should be only used for tries, but maybe (especially ones close to the sideline) the touchies need to play a more active role, maybe conferring with the on field ref more often in these situations.

 

[Flutterby]

There were definately some shockers but that's the human element in the game. The thing about the video ref these days is they often take 3 or 4 looks from every possible angle and still get it wrong, ala State of Origin 3, 2006.

Agreed. Yes I saw some shocking decisions pre-video ref, but accepted that they are human, referring a game played by humans and got it right most of the time. And we could just get on with the game. I get more agitated these days when I still see some shocking decisions but made by the video ref with the aid of all the technology and having all the stoppages in the game.

 

[Nashy]

No, WWE is about entertainment. NRL is a business, the decisions need to be made correctly. It's not entertaining if a wrong decision has been made.

Something needs to be done, and I think the two ref system will see it way into our game.

 

[Jeba]

No, WWE is about entertainment. NRL is a business, the decisions need to be made correctly. It's not entertaining if a wrong decision has been made.

Something needs to be done, and I think the two ref system will see it way into our game.

The two ref system would be ten times worse, given the different styles of reffing we have these days. Imagine if whistle-happy Steve Clark reff'd the same game as Bill Harrigan, Bill would be letting plenty go but Clark would blow the whistle.

I know both these blokes have moved on but it would be a total shit fight IMO.

 

[Nashy]

I would like to see it as Head Ref, and a ref that states "I saw this" like the touchies. Then, the head ref either lets it go, or pulls them up.

 

[Jeba]

Too many friggen refs!!!!

 

[Nashy]

Last year people whinged about the video ref not having enough power, and the refs getting wrong calls.
This year they whigne that they have too much say.
Take refs away people would whinge.
Add more refs people will whinge.

It's finding the solution that has less people whinging I guess.

 

[Coxy]

Kerrod Walters. Bounced ball. Graeme West.

Nuff said.

 

[Jeba]

Kerrod Walters. Bounced ball. Graeme West.

Nuff said.

I'll bet you anything the ref was Graham Annersley [icon_razz1

 

[Coxy]

You're probably right. Knew it was a pathetic Graham though [icon_lol1.

 

[bob the Smasher]

Lol I watched the 98 grand final the other day, and I think almost all the tries were dubious..

I would like to see the video ref, at least in scome cases be restricted to,

a. How many replays they can watch.
b. For certain decisions, such as double movement, they can only watch at normal speed.

I would rather we retain it though. Seriously, you think reffing is bad now, bugger me dumplings kids, you aint seen nothing....

 

[Nashy]

1. Agree
2.
- a) Same as B. Touchies doing their jobs should get these.
- b) Agree
- c) Exact problem with the Video Ref.

Takes far too long to rule. There should be a 30 - 40 second limit on any video ref decisions. If they can't decide in that time, they are looking for the no option too much.

Yes, rugby league used to be better to watch. But it's getting to the point where I get sick of watching any of the games.

The teams play boring safe football because of a lot of the stupid rules. The video ref takes minutes to make a decision. Too many player come out to hurt the other team rather than playing just good hard football.

It's getting to the point where the NRL is as boring, or more boring than Union.