Video referee

[Nashy]

Pretty sure I'm lucky my TV is still alive after the Broncos game on Friday. How myself and Scotty contained ourselves is completely beyond me.

 

[subsbligh]

Was going to post this in the post match - decided to thread mine this doozy.

The McCullough no-try call was worse than his other no-try call earlier in the year.

On-field refs calls a try and is so certain about it he almost blows it before a last minute input from the touch judge to send it to the video ref.

The on field ref calls a try.

The video ref looks at it 7 times.

You cannot say there is sufficient evidence to overturn the original decision where you have enough doubt to look at it 7 times.

When in doubt, the on field ref's decision must stand.

2014 should take the power even further out of the video referee's hands, or call on him to decide a specific issue only.

Just like in a Court of Appeal where the Court has a narrow field of enquiry.

 

[Morkel]

In contrast, I actually think McCullough's "no try" was the correct call. There was more than 50% doubt that he'd dropped it. But it was the wrong decision by the rules - in that there was still some doubt as to whether he retained posession, and therefore the "try" as called by the ref should have stood.

I just can't understand how the NRL don't understand such a simple concept as 50:50. **** the ref having to make a decision on something he may not clearly see, because it means any 99% calls are going to have to defer to the refs decision. Video ref it, if it's 50% (or more) likely that it was a try, call a try. If it's 51% (or more) likely that it's a no try, disallow it. It's not that fucking hard, but people are too busy trying to protect the referees from scrutiny than actually trying to have correct decision making.

 

[subsbligh]

In contrast, I actually think McCullough's "no try" was the correct call. There was more than 50% doubt that he'd dropped it. But it was the wrong decision by the rules - in that there was still some doubt as to whether he retained posession, and therefore the "try" as called by the ref should have stood.

I just can't understand how the NRL don't understand such a simple concept as 50:50. **** the ref having to make a decision on something he may not clearly see, because it means any 99% calls are going to have to defer to the refs decision. Video ref it, if it's 50% (or more) likely that it was a try, call a try. If it's 51% (or more) likely that it's a no try, disallow it. It's not that ****ing hard, but people are too busy trying to protect the referees from scrutiny than actually trying to have correct decision making.

I think it is more that the video referees are happy to make an arbitrary decision to get what they think is the "right" decision over honouring the due process agreed to at the start of the season to ensure more accountability for on-field referees.

They are not there to substitute the on-field ref's decision. They are there to assess the video evidence to assist the on-field referee if he missed something.

RE: McCullough's try - What would have the on-field referee decided with the benefit of the video evidence? That's the end game question here.

Why can't they get the on-field ref to review the video on a tablet or sideline TV/review desk?

 

[Anonymous person]

the call by the video referee was 100% correct. it shouldnt have even needed a second look.

the rules state that if you lose control of the ball you have to regain it before it hits the ground. the "was there any separation at the time of grouding?" rule doesnt exist any more. you have to regain it before it hits the ground. once it came out of his hand, unless he grabbed it with his hand again before it hit the ground it is a knock on. like rabs was saying, if the ball was already on the ground he could ground it with his forearm for a try, but that wasnt the case.

this was a new rule this year remember. if the ball comes out of your hand, you need to regain control before it hits the ground. they deemed there was separation at some point - which there really had to have been for it to go from his hand to his forearm - so it required that he regain control before putting it down. he didnt, so its not a try.

 

[Browny]

Spot on AP, it also shows the rules are retarded by still allowing torso tries lol

 

[LittleDavey]

Biggest thing for me with that one is just consistency - or lack of.

Which is a common thread through the entire game at the moment. IMO the standard of officiating has not kept up with either the players or the technology.

The touchies do **** all, there's so many forward passes (especially out of dummy-half) it's not funny, but every so often they'll pull one up, never mind the dozen they've let go.

I could go on all night about it. It's ruining the game IMO. Something has to fucking change.

 

[Brett]

Can someone show me this new rule about having to re-gain possession of the ball before grounding it? I read through the NRL rulebook on NRL.com, but can't seem to find it.

 

[Anonymous person]

Can someone show me this new rule about having to re-gain possession of the ball before grounding it? I read through the NRL rulebook on NRL.com, but can't seem to find it.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...hange-tim-sheens/story-e6frexnr-1226576993413

along with the changes to the obstruction rule, these were the other changes for 2013:

* THE potential for a player to be sent off for a shoulder charge with head high contact;

* REFEREES making a decision on every potential try before asking a video referee to review the decision;

* SEPARATION during a conventional put down will always result in a no try decision unless the player regains control, instead of simply needing downward pressure at the moment it hits the turf.

 

[Brett]

No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au

along with the changes to the obstruction rule, these were the other changes for 2013:

* THE potential for a player to be sent off for a shoulder charge with head high contact;

* REFEREES making a decision on every potential try before asking a video referee to review the decision;

* SEPARATION during a conventional put down will always result in a no try decision unless the player regains control, instead of simply needing downward pressure at the moment it hits the turf.

Cheers. I wonder why they're not in the rule book.

 

[subsbligh]

* SEPARATION during a conventional put down will always result in a no try decision unless the player regains control, instead of simply needing downward pressure at the moment it hits the turf.

I guess that's where I'd need to review the tape again because so far I've only seen it on the big screen. Anyone handy with the old video to .gif of the incident :-).

I thought from where I was sitting the ball rolled up his arm and there was no separation. I would like to see it again though. He took an age to get it down.

 

[Anonymous person]

well it depends on what they count as separation. separated from what? hand? fingers? skin? it separated from his hand, and just the fact that it ended up half way down his forearm pretty much indicates that there mustve been full separation *somewhere*.

personally im of the belief that as soon as its not in your hands, it shouldnt count as you having the ball.

 

[Porthoz]

well it depends on what they count as separation. separated from what? hand? fingers? skin? it separated from his hand, and just the fact that it ended up half way down his forearm pretty much indicates that there mustve been full separation *somewhere*.

personally im of the belief that as soon as its not in your hands, it shouldnt count as you having the ball.

That is the old "control" issue, and I personally agree with you as to how it should be, and I emphasise the "should", because it's not the way it is!

In the Warriors game right before the Broncos, there was a try scored in almost identical circumstances, and there lies the biggest problem, with consistency being as hard to find as a winning NSW team.
In fact, most tries under these circumstances have been awarded by the video ref after being given as a try by the field ref.

Macca's try should have been awarded under the premise that there was no definite proof of separation to not award it, as has been the ruling pretty much all season!

 

[Anonymous person]

Macca's try should have been awarded under the premise that there was no definite proof of separation to not award it, as has been the ruling pretty much all season!

see im the other way - i say the fact that it went from his hand to half way down his forearm is proof of separation.

but anyway, like you say, it should be about control, not separation.

 

[Dexter]

I think we went through all this last year with a Slater try, anyway, IMO the rule is better now, you shouldn't be aloud to use the ground to help you control what is essentially a knock on. The same way it's called a knock on if you were to use an opposition player to help you control a ball although there have been some clangers with that rule too ala Morris in SoO last year.

 

[lockyer]

I think we went through all this last year with a Slater try, anyway, IMO the rule is better now, you shouldn't be aloud to use the ground to help you control what is essentially a knock on. The same way it's called a knock on if you were to use an opposition player to help you control a ball although there have been some clangers with that rule too ala Morris in SoO last year.

100% agree

 

[Anonymous person]

the rule is much better now, no doubt.

next we need to make it so you can only ground a loose ball with your hands, not forearm and most certainly not torso. i honestly dont know how someone thought that was a good idea, or how it got greenlit.

 

[subsbligh]

see im the other way - i say the fact that it went from his hand to half way down his forearm is proof of separation.

but anyway, like you say, it should be about control, not separation.

Ok so, is that separation from the hand?

Where does the hand stop?

What if part of the hand and part of the forearm are contributing to the holding of the ball?

Picture holding a ball in one arm (ala Greg Inglis). It neccessarily involves a curved hand and the forearm.

Control is exerted by a combination of the hand and the forearm.