Video referee

[Coxy]

I'm liking the new process for the video referee. I like that the referee has to make a decision, and the video referee has to have enough evidence to overrule it, or the original decision stands.

 

[Porthoz]

I'm liking the new process for the video referee. I like that the referee has to make a decision, and the video referee has to have enough evidence to overrule it, or the original decision stands.

How do you explain Friday's decision on Macca's try?

 

[Coxy]

How do you explain Friday's decision on Macca's try?

I dunno. Video ref must've seen something the rest of us didn't :P

 

[OXY-351]

How do you explain Friday's decision on Macca's try?

That one confused me too. I don't think any of the replays showed conclusivly that he either did or didn't score, so the refs original decision should have stuck

 

[Coxy]

That one confused me too. I don't think any of the replays showed conclusivly that he either did or didn't score, so the refs original decision should have stuck

Agreed. Radio commentators were making the assumption that the video ref ruled he was short.

 

[Anonymous person]

are you guys serious?

the mccullough no try was clearly the right decision - when he planted it there was ball, a clear strip of green grass, then the white line. i wanted it to be a try as much as the next diehard broncos fan, but one look at that was enough for me to go "damn".

i like the process much more as well, but we havent really had any really tough ones yet.

 

[Nashy]

I think it's doing a good job. I'm with AP of the Macca, it was clearly a no try, and anyone who argues is on drugs not fit for human consumption.

 

[Kaz]

That one confused me too. I don't think any of the replays showed conclusivly that he either did or didn't score, so the refs original decision should have stuck

Yes it did, it showed he was short of the line.

 

[Broncoman]

I'm a fan of the new system as well I think we will see less stupid calls by the man upstairs this year.

 

[OXY-351]

Yes it did, it showed he was short of the line.

Maybe I missed seeing the best replay of it, and while my initial thought upon seeing one of the replays was he was short, I didn't think any of the other replays showed he definitely didn't score. Opinion in here seems to be divided too so far, and while everyone obviously thinks their view is correct, I think it points to it not being conclusive. I would have been happy with the ref ruling it a no try from the start, as he should have had the best view of it, but I wonder what the ref saw for him to award it a try.

I don't mind the new system, but I just hope the refs actually make the calls as they beleive it to be. I swear in some matches on the weekend, the ref just said no try to be cautious, and let the video ref then rule on it knowing they'd probably get over ruled anyway.

 

[Coxy]

I don't mind the new system, but I just hope the refs actually make the calls as they beleive it to be. I swear in some matches on the weekend, the ref just said no try to be cautious, and let the video ref then rule on it knowing they'd probably get over ruled anyway.

This is certainly the case with obstruction calls. There was one in the Storm game - the Slater try - where Luke Phillips ruled no try and sent it upstairs. The obstruction was pretty clearly not the fault of the attacking team so the try was awarded.

The new obstruction interpretations are taking some getting used to. The whole "did the attacker initiate contact" etc.

 

[Meat77]

I think Parra got gipped with one of those on the weekend though - I only cared because of my vomit-inducing decision to have Chris Sandow as my fantasy goalkicker this year...

 

[Big Pete]

I didn't think the one look or angle we got was conclusive enough to over-turn the McCullough decision. The video ref has to be completely sure and there wasn't conclusive footage of the ball not touching the white line. This was one of those line ball decisions that really comes down to the on-field referee's decision and the on-field ref. who had the best angle of all to see whether or not it was a try ruled accordingly.

It wasn't an absolute howler by any means but for mine I didn't think the video referee respected the original decision enough. The footage wasn't damning. Also, I think in an instance like that, where the only reason he didn't score was because the defender was a mile off-side, it should have been a penalty try but that's for another thread.

The worse call was the Plum try against Raiders. It didn't make any real difference fortunately, but the on-field referee clearly denied the try because he saw the push on Berrigan. I don't care how hard Berrigan was chasing, it's irrelevant, under no circumstances can a player interfere with another in the pursuit of the ball and to over-turn it when the footage supported the on-field referee was plain wrong.

 

[Anonymous person]

even in this crappy super low res screen capture you can see a clear line of grass between the ball and the try line. and that was after the ball was pushed further towards the line than when he landed. dont really see how anyone can say it should be a try.

 

[Big Pete]

Thanks for the image AP, I'm quite familiar with it and I still don't think it's conclusive enough to over-turn the decision.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Anonymous person]

if grass in between the ball and the line isnt conclusive then i dont know what is, but sure. agree to disagree.

 

[Coxy]

If that's the best image then I agree, it's inconclusive. The angle is poor - almost at ground level. No perspective on how thick the line is etc. Would've thought with "spider cam" they could've got an overhead view of all try scoring situations....but then, it's channel 9. They're fucking useless.

 

[Kimlo]

All I see in that image is a ball and white lines.