POST GAME [Round 22, 2023] Broncos vs Roosters

[Big Del]

I'm convinced Big Del is a troll pretending to be a Broncos fan. The only time I've ever seen him he complimentary of a Bronco or the Broncos was his delusional defence of Tesi Niu.

Just goes to show your ignorance ....

 

[Culhwch]

Parallax error. That's why they pay professionals to stand on the sidelines with a flag, rather than consult the home TV viewers for an expert opinion.

Good news, I just checked and nrlrefereeshq.com.au isn't taken if you want to start that fan forum you seem to be dying for.

 

[BroncosFever]

You tend to gain a respect for officials once you become one yourself, in any sport.

It really is about how Kev coaches the team to react to bad decisions because it doesn't who has the whistle, it is going to happen. It's not a Broncos thing, it would be a Broncos thing if we were coached to let it get the better of us, Kev has never been one to take a bad result out on a refereeing performance though.

It's too easy to sit back in the armchair and expect a flawless refereeing performance, it's also unrealistic.

 

[Aldo]

It's too easy to sit back in the armchair and expect a flawless refereeing performance, it's also unrealistic.

Just get the obvious ones right would be a start.

 

[BroncsFan]

You tend to gain a respect for officials once you become one yourself, in any sport.

It really is about how Kev coaches the team to react to bad decisions because it doesn't who has the whistle, it is going to happen. It's not a Broncos thing, it would be a Broncos thing if we were coached to let it get the better of us, Kev has never been one to take a bad result out on a refereeing performance though.

It's too easy to sit back in the armchair and expect a flawless refereeing performance, it's also unrealistic.

I dont care as much for the onfield missing things... I care when the bunker makes mistakes or interferes, because they have a million camera angles to look at and still get things wrong.

I also care when the ref is managing the game to be tight or creating momentum swings... which clearly happens in the NRL

 

[Organix]

My "**** you" answer is to not reward crippling and repeated incompetency, especially if is glaringly obvious to the customer and they are expected to be satisfied with a sub-par product.

My genuine answer is multiple levels of redundancy. Which is what the bunker should be providing. What we are talking about here is what I have to deal with every day with vehicle wraps, and more specifically, taking a 3 dimensional item and making it as 2 dimensional as possible. So that involves everything from the photography, to the measurements, to how the design is set up and how it is printed with bleed, guides, and surplus elements that can be used if something unforeseen happens. For something that seems simple, there are a hell of a lot of ways to **** it up, and that's what I am good at - fucking up and working out how to Not **** That Up Again.

Especially relevant to the "making something 3d be 2d" is a simple but very useful photoshop too called "Perspective Warp". It's not exact, but gets me to around 97-98% accuracy on areas that are square in real life, but not in photographs. Obviously not very useful for a fucking PT Cruiser that looks like someone melted a '50s Ford, but toolboxes, ute trays, truck sides, it's mint. Let's play a game.

We can't see the sidelines on both sides, but we can see the "10" in from both sides. These should be parallel in theory, close enough in real life to be useful:


View attachment 23254

Perspective warp:

View attachment 23255

View attachment 23256

Does the bunker have the time to **** around with this shit? No. But should they have the expertise to be able to determine this shit from a glance, to the competency level of a nobody like me? Absofuckinglutely. Should that bunker official double down on their incompetence by deferring the call to people on the field with zero technology, replays or slow-mo, when there is more than enough evidence to prove that the on-field call was wrong? If I tolerated that level of idiocy the business I work for would have shut its doors long ago. And yet here we are at the top level of a multiple-millions-of-dollars-a-year professional code.

Could you do something similar for this?

Was a far closer thing, and I'm sure the powers that be had a greater problem with this not being reviewed, thus the later review.

 

[Organix]

You tend to gain a respect for officials once you become one yourself, in any sport.

It really is about how Kev coaches the team to react to bad decisions because it doesn't who has the whistle, it is going to happen. It's not a Broncos thing, it would be a Broncos thing if we were coached to let it get the better of us, Kev has never been one to take a bad result out on a refereeing performance though.

It's too easy to sit back in the armchair and expect a flawless refereeing performance, it's also unrealistic.

Doesn't really explain the inconsistent MRC results

 

[Culhwch]

You tend to gain a respect for officials once you become one yourself, in any sport.

It really is about how Kev coaches the team to react to bad decisions because it doesn't who has the whistle, it is going to happen. It's not a Broncos thing, it would be a Broncos thing if we were coached to let it get the better of us, Kev has never been one to take a bad result out on a refereeing performance though.

It's too easy to sit back in the armchair and expect a flawless refereeing performance, it's also unrealistic.

What about accountability? I don't think anyone here expects perfection, but as has been said a thousand times already some of the mistakes they are making are elementary and often avoidable - like the Staggs offside call. And then what adds to the frustration is Annesley coming out and backing the bad calls rather than taking ownership of mistakes and taking measures to improve.

 

[BroncsFan]

Could you do something similar for this?

View attachment 23263
Was a far closer thing, and I'm sure the powers that be had a greater problem with this not being reviewed, thus the later review.

I'm no @Morkel but I was interested because I thought Ezra looked offside.

In the picture that we have for this one there doesn't appear to be as many points of reference from either side of the field, and also the lines aren't as long as I'd like to ensure scale, angles, etc.

but the scrum lines between the 10 and 20 are visible and if they're assumed to be the same length, same locations on the field and running parallel, which they should be, then we can draw lines between the ends of those lines to give some guidance to Ezra and Walsh's positioning.

In the below Ezra appears to be about in line with the scrum line markings, whilst Walsh is well in front of them... so my amateur graphics overlaying suggests Ezra was actually onside.

 

[Morkel]

Could you do something similar for this?

View attachment 23263
Was a far closer thing, and I'm sure the powers that be had a greater problem with this not being reviewed, thus the later review.

 

[Morkel]

I'm no @Morkel but I was interested because I thought Ezra looked offside.

In the picture that we have for this one there doesn't appear to be as many points of reference from either side of the field, and also the lines aren't as long as I'd like to ensure scale, angles, etc.

but the scrum lines between the 10 and 20 are visible and if they're assumed to be the same length, same locations on the field and running parallel, which they should be, then we can draw lines between the ends of those lines to give some guidance to Ezra and Walsh's positioning.

In the below Ezra appears to be about in line with the scrum line markings, whilst Walsh is well in front of them... so my amateur graphics overlaying suggests Ezra was actually onside.

View attachment 23264

What you've done is pretty accurate to my eye. Technically I only really need the length-of-the-field lines to work out parallel (the width lines just make it appear square so it's an easier visual to identify). I can also extrapolate that 20 metre line further out for reference. Let me just finish my coffee...

 

[Morkel]

A bunch of notes here:
* There is a small amount of fish-eye from the footage, so the lines on the field aren't perfectly straight. I have made it so the line are parallel between the two horizontal reference points (Maam's positioning on the left, Walsh's positioning on the right). You'll see how the 10 metre line tapers away to the right of Walsh, but the points directly ahead of Maam and Walsh are parallel.
* You also see that I have marked the line from the back of Walsh's back foot, as a worst-case-scenario.
* You'll also see that the ball has already left Walsh's foot, so this is a point in time after the kick.
* Even after all these worst-case references, Maam's back foot is still behind the line. His other foot is in the air, behind the front foot.

Try confirmed.

 

[BroncosFever]

I have seen 43 different attempts to draw a straight line in this thread.

Maybe some of them are accurate, maybe some of them are not, irrelevant. It does prove though that it's not as easy as you think to adjudicate on offsides. Cut them a bit of slack, is all I am saying.

The blatantly wrong decisions, absolutely, go to town.

 

[Culhwch]

I have seen 43 different attempts to draw a straight line in this thread.

Maybe some of them are accurate, maybe some of them are not, irrelevant. It does prove though that it's not as easy as you think to adjudicate on offsides. Cut them a bit of slack, is all I am saying.

The blatantly wrong decisions, absolutely, go to town.

That's what we're doing, thanks for the blessing!

 

[BroncosFever]

That's what we're doing, thanks for the blessing!

No, you're drawing lines.

 

[Morkel]

No, you're drawing lines.

FTR we wouldn't have to if the NRL made good on their claim that they were introducing a virtual overlay on to all broadcasts. You could argue that the above proves that it's not as easy as it seems, but they've had the tech a long time in the NFL. It would now be old tech and you'd assume they could either easily replicate it, or license it.

They haven't done it though. So once again we are talking incompetence on a grand scale (for something that is pretty fucking essential in order to get decisions correct), or they have deliberately resisted it for... other reasons.

And also also, even if you argue the Walsh Maam one was close, even if we revert back to the old 50:50 rule (genuinely no clear answer), and the advantage goes to the attacking team, it's a try. However, the Maam Staggs one was, in my eyes (and also calculated quite accurately) more of a 95:05 (almost certainly a try). There was no reason to defer to the on-field refs as it had almost zero doubt.

 

[Dash]

No, you're drawing lines.

And the lines showed it wasn't even close, and confirmed what every single person (except the bunker apparently) could figure out with their eyes.

 

[HarryAllan7]

I won't go too much into my extremely technical and highly accurate method... but my line clearly shows that our players are onside.

I won't entertain any talk of bias.