Luke Patten

[uptheguts]

Well he's back for game one 2015 . We will never get any of those 50: 50 decisions. We will be dudded. You read it here first.

 

[Organix]

Just wanted to also point out that IMHO no person should defend punching someone else in Rugby League especially in the head. Don't get me wrong, I love the biff and I would give my left nut to see someone flatten Josh Reynolds but when it is intentionally punches to the head in a game that ISN'T boxing then I don't see it as something I want in League. When I was growing up watching SOO I used to love it and expect it but to be honest so did every player on the field as well. They were ready for a punch up. These days the players clearly go in and play at slapping and head rubbing and all the other BS that is just so pathetic but they know that punching is not on.

Then you get a dog like Gallen, who went in late with a swinging arm first and after Myles told him to F-O and just pushed him decided that he would start wailing on him. It wasn't so long ago that Lance Hohaia had to retired after he got clocked in the Super League when some "big man" didn't like the niggle and decided to effectively ruin another man's livelihood and potentially life if he wasn't lucky over a game of sport. It should never be justified. My 2 cents.

 

[CaptainHook]

Just wanted to also point out that IMHO no person should defend punching someone else in Rugby League especially in the head. Don't get me wrong, I love the biff and I would give my left nut to see someone flatten Josh Reynolds but when it is intentionally punches to the head in a game that ISN'T boxing then I don't see it as something I want in League. When I was growing up watching SOO I used to love it and expect it but to be honest so did every player on the field as well. They were ready for a punch up. These days the players clearly go in and play at slapping and head rubbing and all the other BS that is just so pathetic but they know that punching is not on.

Then you get a dog like Gallen, who went in late with a swinging arm first and after Myles told him to F-O and just pushed him decided that he would start wailing on him. It wasn't so long ago that Lance Hohaia had to retired after he got clocked in the Super League when some "big man" didn't like the niggle and decided to effectively ruin another man's livelihood and potentially life if he wasn't lucky over a game of sport. It should never be justified. My 2 cents.

Excellent points, Organix. Origin 2 last year was the worst I've ever seen. It wasn't because the Maroons lost and the streak ended - let's be honest it was bound to happen sooner or later. It was because there was sooo much grubby stuff and foul play in it and the match officials were seemingly oblivious to it. I think it was Phil Gould who said the comment 'hopefully a game of rugby league breaks out soon.'

Truly disgraceful. If this series is a repeat - and I have a strong feeling it might - then I'm going to lose interest in it fast. I suspect the Blues know they can't win in a fair contest and they are counting on the referees to put the whistle away. With no Gallen or Bird surely it must be a cleaner contest by default, right?

 

[1910]

You do have to be a qualified referee in the video box- there is two of them not just Patten. Patten was also the video ref in game three last year- Queensland won.

In fact he was video ref with Clarke and Sutton in all three games.

 

[Big Pete]

Patten was also the video ref in game three last year- Queensland won.

They also had two tries denied.

One could have easily been ruled a rake against the Blues defence and a goal line drop-out, deemed a loose carry instead.

The other saw Cronk taken out late by Scott which prevented Cooper from putting JT onside.

Not saying they were good or bad calls, just that his performance didn't help him in the eyes of the Queensland public.

EDIT: Plus the one try the Blues scored came off a penalty that the video referees recommended.

 

[Organix]

Excellent points, Organix. Origin 2 last year was the worst I've ever seen. It wasn't because the Maroons lost and the streak ended - let's be honest it was bound to happen sooner or later. It was because there was sooo much grubby stuff and foul play in it and the match officials were seemingly oblivious to it. I think it was Phil Gould who said the comment 'hopefully a game of rugby league breaks out soon.'

Truly disgraceful. If this series is a repeat - and I have a strong feeling it might - then I'm going to lose interest in it fast. I suspect the Blues know they can't win in a fair contest and they are counting on the referees to put the whistle away. With no Gallen or Bird surely it must be a cleaner contest by default, right?

Yeah Hook,

I have always been of the opinion that (whether I am watching or playing) that if it is a fair contest then it doesn't matter whether I win or lose. But when there are dirty tactics or really blatantly bad refereeing (I don't mind the odd mistake, we are all human) then it just sours the taste so much that I really just want to turn my back on the game.

Why have laws of the game if we don't abide by them? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know whether it is my biased opinion but there are some teams that play fairly (Brisbane - without Carl Webb, New Zealand, Cowboys - without Carl Webb) and others that do not (Manly - all the time no joke, Bulldogs - wtf Reynolds?, Melbourne - wrestle).

If the competition was played with honour and to the letter the skill of the game would shine through. One of my main problems with AFL is all that BS push and shove they do, it just seems thuggish and in bad form.

Really milking my 2 cents now.

 

[gordjw]

[MENTION=1899]Big Pete[/MENTION], also when they declined to intervene after Woods knocked the ball dead in goal from the kickoff.

I don't mind if they want VR to overturn decisions, but nobody (including themselves) knows when they can or should.

 

[Big Pete]

Don't remind me.

I was just talking about Game III. I already whinged about that crooked piece of reffing.

 

[Splinter]

I am firmly of the belief they need a fan in the new bunker when it is established to give a quick common sense opinion to the video refs. Mostly it only takes one or two looks at the replay.
I am willing to put up my hand for the job:takdir:

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Why can't they just put an old Warrior in the box to take away the perception of bias. Someone like that died in the wool kiwi Steve Price would do good.

 

[Cult]

Why can't they just put an old Warrior in the box to take away the perception of bias. Someone like that died in the wool kiwi Steve Price would do good.

A Kiwi rugby union player would definitely lack bias. What is Brad Thorn doing now that he has retired?

 

[subsbligh]

So long as they properly administer the burden of proof, I can live with that.

Sufficient evidence imports a pretty high degree of certainty.

More than 2 or 3 looks at it means that it there is probably a high degree of uncertainty in the footage you are looking at, therefore you should default to the on-field referee's decision.

That's the whole point - the on field refs need to make a good decision first.

 

[Nashy]

This entire setup doesn't work, because they are forcing the refs to make a call, even if it's 100% a guess.

 

[Bucking Beads]

 

[ivanhungryjak]

This entire setup doesn't work, because they are forcing the refs to make a call, even if it's 100% a guess.

See, this is another fault of the NRL. Gus Gould and his ilk were complaining about the refs. "Make a decision", they said, "then send it up for confirmation".

So that's what they changed it to.

Now they are whinging, "The refs have no idea so they have a guess and send it up".

That fool will never be happy until he makes 100% of decisions relating to the entire NRL operations.

 

[Harry Sack]

 

[Harry Sack]

Another howler from The General tonight.

 

[LittleDavey]

So long as they properly administer the burden of proof, I can live with that.

Sufficient evidence imports a pretty high degree of certainty.

More than 2 or 3 looks at it means that it there is probably a high degree of uncertainty in the footage you are looking at, therefore you should default to the on-field referee's decision.

That's the whole point - the on field refs need to make a good decision first.

Subs, you're a prophet :D