The Gillett Sin Bin

[Cult]

Fair enough ! Entitled to your view. I agree there has been some poor ones this year but the Gilette sin bin wasn't the worst one in history. It has been the refs failing to act rather than their actions that really have been terrible. Players left on the field for spear tackles and tripping ! Truthfully, in my opinion I don't think things have worsened but clangers continue to occur. The refs have never had such scrutiny and never has there been such detailed surveillance of every tackle,run or play. With my heart I believe they get far more right, a fact which shamefully is never highlighted. It is so like a newspaper, endless bad stories and **** all good ones. It's the endless dwelling on the errors that make it seem as though it's all doom and gloom, just like the newspapers.

Yeah but the 30 something thousand people at Suncorp last week knew he was sent off for no reason, most knew the Dragons also scored off a forward pass without seeing the detailed surveillance. They are missing way too much and not getting any better, which is a huge problem for our game. I have seen 100 missed forward passes this year. Half of those from the Roosters ;) I agree that them failing to act was an issue and I even said before our game that I bet someone will be sent off for a really shitty reason because they failed to act the night before. Of course they get far more right, they make a bazillion calls a game. But some of the things they get wrong, video refs included, should not be happening.

 

[Morkel]

One thing that would help consistency and fairness in my opinion is calling a penalty when it's warranted. I know that sounds kind of deeerp, but at the moment there's too much "interpretation", allowing unfair treatment and reward for bad sportsmanship. The commentators will bitch on about it slowing down the game, "just let the players play the game and let it flow". Well, no, **** off, if one team is employing deliberate, illegal tactics, don't warn them, don't turn a blind eye for the sake of a flowing game, blow the fucking whistle. Yes it'll slow the game down initially while the coaches and teams take time to adapt, but in the long run it will be a much faster, cleaner, fairer game. Which is what everyone wants, right? Don't try to do that artificially by simply allowing grubby and cheating tactics, let it happens because teams will be too frightened to risk penalties for foul play and start playing some real football.

 

[Super Freak]

They should just get rid of the refs completely and let the 2 sides smash it out for 80 minutes.

 

[Foordy]

One thing that would help consistency and fairness in my opinion is calling a penalty when it's warranted. I know that sounds kind of deeerp, but at the moment there's too much "interpretation", allowing unfair treatment and reward for bad sportsmanship. The commentators will bitch on about it slowing down the game, "just let the players play the game and let it flow". Well, no, **** off, if one team is employing deliberate, illegal tactics, don't warn them, don't turn a blind eye for the sake of a flowing game, blow the fucking whistle. Yes it'll slow the game down initially while the coaches and teams take time to adapt, but in the long run it will be a much faster, cleaner, fairer game. Which is what everyone wants, right? Don't try to do that artificially by simply allowing grubby and cheating tactics, let it happens because teams will be too frightened to risk penalties for foul play and start playing some real football.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

I couldn't agree more. Referee's are not there to coach the players. They are there to ensure players play the game by the rules.

If it means you blow 50 penalties in a match so be it. Players and coaches will eventually learn that illegal tactics are not worth the risk.

And the game will be better for it in the long run.

I don't know when this thing about refs trying to coach players started. I don't recall Bill Harrigan ever do that shit, he was by no means perfect. But even Harrigan at 50% shits all over those incompetent ***** wearing pink shirts, that we have today.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Fair enough bman but in 1999 you were what? About 4 years old, right ? Really, a person would not really have much of a view of refereeing standards until they reached their mid teens I'd guess so any memories of the good old days would have to come from old video.....and what's around now would likely be highlights and not the all too common lowlights ! Trust an old man on this one, today's refs are light years better and get 99 % of the decisions right unlike the good old days when it was a stellar season when they got 75% right. Most of the refs were so fucked after 15 minutes they used to blow penalties just to get their breath back !!!!

What horse shit.....!!

Referees are ruining the game. They are most definitely worse now than they were 10-20-30 years ago. (and yes, I was around back then and remember it well)

When there was one ref and two touchies there might have been mistakes but at least they were making them on the back of real time situations. Now they have multiple sets of eyes......multiple video angles.....multiple replays.....tools at their disposal up the ying yang and the useless twats still get it wrong.

99% of the decisions right? ......pffft, please you've got to be joking. You'd be closer to the truth in saying they get 99% of their decisions wrong.

 

[Big Pete]

I'm with Huge on this one.

The reffing back then was an absolute cluster. The difference is it wasn't scrutinized nearly as much as it is today, usually by people who don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Huge]

What horse shit.....!!

Referees are ruining the game. They are most definitely worse now than they were 10-20-30 years ago. (and yes, I was around back then and remember it well)

When there was one ref and two touchies there might have been mistakes but at least they were making them on the back of real time situations. Now they have multiple sets of eyes......multiple video angles.....multiple replays.....tools at their disposal up the ying yang and the useless twats still get it wrong.

99% of the decisions right? ......pffft, please you've got to be joking. You'd be closer to the truth in saying they get 99% of their decisions wrong.

There's reality and then there's the world you live in. The only reason you didn't see the majority of the mistakes made was because you only had your eyes and what you thought you saw. Secondly , in the good old days you had generally one angle and usually they didn't show a replay of what had just transpired, saving these supposedly superior refs from the embarrassment of having their constant **** ups on a big screen.

Feel free to live in the fantasy world where everything was better in the old days and ignore the logical conclusion one would draw from the knowledge that everyone has gotten bigger better faster and that includes technology. Apparently the only ones who have regressed are the refs. What horse shit indeed !

 

[Mr Fourex]

I'm with Huge on this one.

The reffing back then was an absolute cluster. The difference is it wasn't scrutinized nearly as much as it is today, usually by people who don't know what they're talking about.

Well....you may disagree, but I consider the likes of most commentator's opinions who watch A LOT of football and for the most part have played the game themselves at the highest level to be somewhat knowledgable.

They, you...me and blind freddy can see the replays and more often than not, do come up with the right common sense decision. The referee in the video box can not.

The on field referees of today with all their technology and their extra sets of eyes have much less of an excuse to get it wrong now, then Greg Hartly did when he was puffing along, dragging his portly round shape across the park.

 

[Mr Fourex]

There's reality and then there's the world you live in. The only reason you didn't see the majority of the mistakes made was because you only had your eyes and what you thought you saw.

and you saw different did you, than the rest of the crowd watching the game? You saw and have remembered all these mistakes...hey?

I doubt it.

 

[Big Pete]

Well....you may disagree, but I consider the likes of most commentator's opinions who watch A LOT of football and for the most part have played the game themselves at the highest level to be somewhat knowledgable.

They, you...me and blind freddy can see the replays and more often than not, do come up with the right common sense decision. The referee in the video box can not.

The on field referees of today with all their technology and their extra sets of eyes have much less of an excuse to get it wrong now, then Greg Hartly did when he was puffing along, dragging his portly round shape across the park.

Mate, you know as well as I do if you give these commentators half a reason to complain about referees they'll do so. Even if the referee is a 100% right according to the rules, they'll find something to complain about because it's apart of their job - to sell the drama of the game.

I agree that the video referees need to improve and need to support the on-field referees more than what they do. I disagree that their introduction has caused the standards to drop. At worst, they've remained the same.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

I dunno about anyone else, but the refs are certainly the worst I've ever seen them and have been for the past 3 years.

When you've got a ref sending a player to the bin for essentially being onside about 40 metres, you know you've got real problems.

 

[Mr Fourex]

I dunno about anyone else, but the refs are certainly the worst I've ever seen them and have been for the past 3 years.

When you've got a ref sending a player to the bin for essentially being onside about 40 metres, you know you've got real problems.

Yeah....I'm not normally a ref hater, but this year has just pushed me over the edge. Every 2nd game you watch there's a fucken howler of a decision in the first 5 mins of the game and usually it's costing a team points.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Mate, you know as well as I do if you give these commentators half a reason to complain about referees they'll do so. Even if the referee is a 100% right according to the rules, they'll find something to complain about because it's apart of their job - to sell the drama of the game.

Maybe.....but I know most times when I'm watching a VR, I'm seeing it the same way as the commentators are.

I think commentators should be the video refs. Their interpretations of the rules is how I believe they were intended to be applied.

As for the on field ref criticisms......most of it is what we (spectators) see and complain about anyway. Countless times I've seen something in a game and bellowed out an expletive or two, only to listen to Sterlo or Gould mention the incident themselves. Gould moans about the ref coaching teams instead of penalising them .....as mentioned in above comments, we see it too.

 

[Big Pete]

think commentators should be the video refs. Their interpretations of the rules is how I believe they were intended to be applied.

Oh god...

Imagine all the Rabs and Gould arguments.

It'd just be 10 minutes of old men bickering until Gus just brow beats everyone.

Queensland wouldn't win another Origin.

 

[Morkel]

I don't give a shit how bad they used to be. I give even less of a shit that people think that because it's improved -slightly- that that is good enough. With the technology we are using today, if we can see blatant mistakes on TV or live at the game, then that's incredibly damning. The fact that some fuckwit has made a rule that decisions can't be overturned because it "damages the refs confidence"? That's unforgivable. It's so typical NRL that instead of making it so that the refs get the calls right, they make it so that those wrong calls are "correct" by some arse-saving clever wording. How many times do I need to point out the stupidity of the on-field ref having to make a call one way or the other, even if they have no clue? How does that fix the Foran hand-of-god situation, which was the instigator for this backwards system? If there wasn't enough evidence to call it a no-try then, how is there enough evidence to overturn a "try" call had that been the ref's on-field ruling? You see what I mean? It was 99% a no-try, but because it's not 100%, then the ref must have been correct, let's all hug and congratulate ourselves on another flawless showing.

I agree that the refs should be trained as the 17th team. But that being the case, I want that team's captain present for every minute of every game. If they can't be in the stands, they need to be in Lame Bunker 3000, directing his 'forwards', getting them to do the dirty work in terms of keeping their eyes on every tackle, every pass, every ruck. While at the same time the 'backs' are analysing the video feeds, looking for opportunities to step in, call something, flag it for attention. That there, was it a strip or a bad carry, rewind camera 5, show me that tackler's arm. If my Tivo can do it, the million dollar 500fps, 4k video feeds can surely do it too. Bang, decision in 4 seconds, it was a loose carry, tried to offload. Captain has the last say, scrum. And I think I know the perfect person for that job, someone getting close to retirement, as a current NRL team captain who already runs most of their video sessions, is probably the smartest player in the game, and knows every rule backwards and upside down.

 

[Big Pete]

Quality post Morkel.

Look, I don't think fans will ever be satisfied with the standard of refereeing. They will always find fault and attribute blame whenever they can and I believe a victim mentality definitely exists amongst sports fans. Pick a sport, and chances are, there will be some controversy with officiating because that's just human nature. Eat, breathe, sleep, blame the refs - it's called the circle of life.

Never the less I believe there are a ton of solutions being proposed which is great and I definitely think some of them need to be employed in order to improve the standard of refereeing or even reduce their impact on the game. For mine, the return of 5 minute sin-bins would certainly be something I'd consider because it seems like 10 is too harsh while continous cautions feels too light. 5 minutes would sort teams out.

I also want to see more quick taps. Fans love spontaneity and when they're denied those moments through lazy refereeing it becomes an issue.

But outside of changes like that and others, I don't think there is ever going to be a system where people are happy with and when things are building, the media will find something to whinge about causing some knee-jerk reaction fans don't want to see.

 

[gordjw]

Yep, Michael Ennis would be perfect for that...

 

[Porthoz]

This is in my opinion the worst refereeing season in this millennium, and with the available technology, that is simply not good enough.

FWIW, I think the NFL has got it right, with a head referee, a number of assistants, 2 challenges (they get a third if both are proven right), TD's are always reviewed, and in the last 2 minutes of each half, the "video ref" can also challenge a ref's decision.
The head referee has a "video booth" where he can check the available images and is the only one who can rule on the maintaining or reversing of the decision.

Yes, I know that having each try reviewed can be a pain, and the NFL is obviously much more suited to this due to all it's stoppages, but the system works (except for that period in 2012 where the professional refs went on strike, and you truly saw the difference between them and the park footy ones).
While there are always controversial decisions, you barely ever see major game defining stuff-ups... they will mostly be 50/50's some people will whine about, or some obscure interpretation of their complex rules.

I think we need to go back to a single head referee system, and none of this control ref BS, with a number of assistants to help him out and 2 captain's challenges. The players will almost always really know what happened, and they won't want to waste the precious challenges on BS stuff, but only about what is worth arguing.