Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Danny McGuire crocked


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#41 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 11:21 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 14 2010, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You can hear the linesman say he thought it was late, and Alibert said he thought it was fine - as it was a crucial stage, he rightly asked the VR to have a check. The VR then made the decision that Donald had tackled Richards late. I agree with you that it was a harsh call, and the slow-mo replays don't help with these calls.

Whether we agree with it or not, the call was that Donald's tackle was late, and based on that decision, the penalty was in exactly the right position (right down to Alibert making Richards move a metre back at the last second).


Is the video referee there to make a split decision call though? Surely if the ref has seen the same incident and deemed nothing wrong the video ref should not come into it? I always thought the video ref was there because for example the ref possibly hasn't seen something that may have happened, e.g ball groundings or foul play etc. In this case he was so sure he gave the scrum and feed right away, and in my opinion it's a subjective dicision on the late tackle so should not have been changed by the video referee.

#42 sallywt

sallywt
  • Coach
  • 510 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 11:25 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 14 2010, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You can hear the linesman say he thought it was late, and Alibert said he thought it was fine - as it was a crucial stage, he rightly asked the VR to have a check. The VR then made the decision that Donald had tackled Richards late. I agree with you that it was a harsh call, and the slow-mo replays don't help with these calls.

Whether we agree with it or not, the call was that Donald's tackle was late, and based on that decision, the penalty was in exactly the right position (right down to Alibert making Richards move a metre back at the last second).


You always give whatever is the greatest advantage to the non offending team. In this case the penalty was given for the second offence. The reason play was not stopped at the time was because advantage has to be allowed to see if an advantage is gained by the non offending team. You can also hear Thierry asking the VR for clarification, which according to the protocols we all work by and agreed by the SL coaches he is entirely at that point entitled to do.

As for SteveiM13's comment about the sin bin for Crusaders robbing them of a player, the rules are plain and simple that any delay of the 20m restart is an automatic sin bin.

Bentham did not send Manu off as it was not a sending off offence as has been shown by the video review panel. He did not sin bin Peter Fox because contrary to popular belief slowing down the ptb is not an automatic sin bin and there is no such thing as a "professional foul", it's another myth put about by tv commentators. The penalty was the correct decision. There are only 2 occasions when an automatic sin bin is allowed and that is a deliberate delay to a 20m restart as in the case of the Crusaders and a late challenge on the kicker.

Sorry, but can't remember the particular Tomkins incident you are talking about so can't possibly comment.



#43 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,144 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 12:17 PM

QUOTE (sallywt @ Sep 14 2010, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You always give whatever is the greatest advantage to the non offending team. In this case the penalty was given for the second offence. The reason play was not stopped at the time was because advantage has to be allowed to see if an advantage is gained by the non offending team. You can also hear Thierry asking the VR for clarification, which according to the protocols we all work by and agreed by the SL coaches he is entirely at that point entitled to do.
Thanks, I am comfortable with all this, my only question outstanding is whether McGuire could have been sinbinned in the circumstances or whether this was in effect 'cancelled' out by the fact that Wigan were given this 'greater' advantage.

Cheers in advance.


#44 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,144 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 12:20 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 12:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is the video referee there to make a split decision call though? Surely if the ref has seen the same incident and deemed nothing wrong the video ref should not come into it? I always thought the video ref was there because for example the ref possibly hasn't seen something that may have happened, e.g ball groundings or foul play etc. In this case he was so sure he gave the scrum and feed right away, and in my opinion it's a subjective dicision on the late tackle so should not have been changed by the video referee.
I believe the VR can give advice to the ref on whatever the ref asks him to. As this was a crucial stage of the game, asking the VR was the right thing to do IMHO.

As you say it was a subjective decision, the commentators didn't all agree, the refereeing team didn't all agree and we certainly don't all agree on here, but Alibert was right to refer it if he had the chance to. I actually thought Alibert kept his cool really well here, in what was possibly one of the toughest moments of the year for a ref.


#45 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 01:54 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 14 2010, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I believe the VR can give advice to the ref on whatever the ref asks him to. As this was a crucial stage of the game, asking the VR was the right thing to do IMHO.

As you say it was a subjective decision, the commentators didn't all agree, the refereeing team didn't all agree and we certainly don't all agree on here, but Alibert was right to refer it if he had the chance to. I actually thought Alibert kept his cool really well here, in what was possibly one of the toughest moments of the year for a ref.

couldnt agree more thought alibert did a great job given the circumstances..

He was pretty sure of one thing, the touchy seemed pretty sure of the other (in the same way he may be sur of a grounding in the try decision but the ref is not) and so he sent it to the VR.. correct decision.

I am not sure about the late tackle myself and if it was my decision i wouldnt have given it but then i;m not asked (which is a shame i always think biggrin.gif)


#46 petero

petero
  • Coach
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 08:00 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 14 2010, 11:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Your original post made me think more about this.

If they watched it and decided that McGuire's challenge was a professional foul, but then agreed to in effect play on as Wigan were still on the attack and gained a further advantage then wouldn't that negate the foul from McGuire ie. he wouldn't be able to be binned?

I suppose it is like if somebody pulls somebody back but the team then goes on to score, the offender does not then get binned too. I wonder whether it was a case of one or the other, ie. you can't give advantage and the penalty in the Leeds half and sinbin McGuire. If you were going to bin McGuire, I wonder whether the penalty would have to have been given in Wigan's own half.

It would be very interesting to get Cummings official stance on this one.


Tell you what, after reading and trying to follow all the various implications involved in that , I cannot help but think that we ought to return to the days of an Clay or Thompson referreeing, when decisions were made on their's and their TJs assumptions and no one else was involved or more importantly, expected to be.

This " we have the technology so why not use it" syndrome has frankly gone beyond it's limitations.
So much so that the Aussie commentators, who incidentally, speak a little more clearly not to mention objectively, upon this subject are noticeably becoming quite critical of the entire VR system.
I find agreement with them on that as I personally believe that as with all items such as this the controlling element of those that grab it is never ending and, the need to go ever further is always paramount in their beliefs.

#47 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:19 PM

QUOTE (sallywt @ Sep 14 2010, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You always give whatever is the greatest advantage to the non offending team. In this case the penalty was given for the second offence. The reason play was not stopped at the time was because advantage has to be allowed to see if an advantage is gained by the non offending team. You can also hear Thierry asking the VR for clarification, which according to the protocols we all work by and agreed by the SL coaches he is entirely at that point entitled to do.

As for SteveiM13's comment about the sin bin for Crusaders robbing them of a player, the rules are plain and simple that any delay of the 20m restart is an automatic sin bin.

Bentham did not send Manu off as it was not a sending off offence as has been shown by the video review panel. He did not sin bin Peter Fox because contrary to popular belief slowing down the ptb is not an automatic sin bin and there is no such thing as a "professional foul", it's another myth put about by tv commentators. The penalty was the correct decision. There are only 2 occasions when an automatic sin bin is allowed and that is a deliberate delay to a 20m restart as in the case of the Crusaders and a late challenge on the kicker.

Sorry, but can't remember the particular Tomkins incident you are talking about so can't possibly comment.


Alibert did not give the second offence because there was not one to penalise. Alibert signalled the scrum straight away and he had a better view of it than the touch judge who was miles behind.

In my opinion neither Alibert or the touchjudge saw the offence by McGuire, just like hardly anyone else. Hence, no advantage was being played by the referee. If Alibert had seen it why did he call a scrum instead of going back to the Wigan 30 or award it himself under the greater advantage rule you say exists?

Alibert did not see the McGuire foul or think that Donald made a late tackle, but Wigan were awarded a penalty on the Rhinos 40 instead of the Wigan 30 where the only offence took place. You say Alibert asks Bentham for clarification, but of what exactly. i didn't hear Alibert ask Bentham to check if Donald made a late tackle, so who decided it was a penalty? If Alibert has ruled there was nothing wrong, surely that can't be over-ruled because isn't the decision of the referee final. Alibert had already given the scrum because in his opinion there was no late tackle.

What you have described is the video referee telling Alibert to award a penalty for something Alibert did not ask him to look at and did not think was a penalty anyway.. What are the protocols you mention and where can we find the rules for what video referees can and can't do in the course of a game?

As for the review panel, are these the same people that said Buderus performed a spear tackle when he did nothing of the sort?? Willie Manu flattened Cockayne with a high shot that was worse than anything Buderus did. The same that have seen no wrong with tackles like that by Coley at Headingley.

Is delaying a 20m restart an automatic sin bin? How does what Fox did, which was to deliberately take away an in play advantage, not merit a sin bin? There seems to have been a drop off in sin binning charges on kickers, see Loughlin on Robinosn at Murrayfield, and the ref no longer calls kicker clear, which was all the rage earlier in the season.



#48 Allan Marsden

Allan Marsden
  • Banned
  • 433 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 10:24 PM

Penalty Try wink.gif

#49 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,144 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 11:08 PM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 14 2010, 11:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What you have described is the video referee telling Alibert to award a penalty for something Alibert did not ask him to look at and did not think was a penalty anyway.. What are the protocols you mention and where can we find the rules for what video referees can and can't do in the course of a game?
No, Alibert clearly asked about the late tackle, as the touch judge claimed there was one, and Alibert didn't think it was (I agree with him) but the VR felt it was late.

You are probably right that they missed the original offence - or the ref left that incident to the TJ's as is usually the case, and the TJ came on for the later offence.


#50 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 14 September 2010 - 11:36 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 15 2010, 12:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, Alibert clearly asked about the late tackle, as the touch judge claimed there was one, and Alibert didn't think it was (I agree with him) but the VR felt it was late.

You are probably right that they missed the original offence - or the ref left that incident to the TJ's as is usually the case, and the TJ came on for the later offence.


It was so not a late tackle, assuming that this is what Bentham gave the penalty for, that even Clarke sid it was not a penalty!! As we agreed that neither the touchjudge or Alibert saw the McGuire foul and that it was not a late tackle by Donald, did Bentham award a penalty for something he was not asked to check? We ought to be told!!

#51 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,144 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 08:12 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 15 2010, 12:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It was so not a late tackle, assuming that this is what Bentham gave the penalty for, that even Clarke sid it was not a penalty!! As we agreed that neither the touchjudge or Alibert saw the McGuire foul and that it was not a late tackle by Donald, did Bentham award a penalty for something he was not asked to check? We ought to be told!!

I'm not sure what you are not grasping tbh. The penalty was for a late tackle by Donald. Whether we think it was late is not the point, the TJ and the VR did, and gave a penalty where the ball landed from Richards' kick.
Just to clarify - the TJ came on saying it was a late tackle, the ref thought it was fine. Alibert sought clarification from the VR who gave a decision on exactly what he had been asked about.

#52 Exiled Wiganer

Exiled Wiganer
  • Coach
  • 5,940 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 10:32 AM

I enjoyed this game as much as any defeat I can remember in a long while, given that Wigan played with guts and skill, and so re-watched the game. I must say that my initial opinion was confirmed, that Alibert did very well and acted exactly right on these incidents. It is a shame that McGuire got injured at all, and especially in the manner he did so, as he has been playing very well. Without him and Buderus they could struggle a bit in the semi.
It really was a wonderful game. We have had some treats in SL this year.


#53 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 11:25 AM

QUOTE (Exiled Wiganer @ Sep 15 2010, 11:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I enjoyed this game as much as any defeat I can remember in a long while, given that Wigan played with guts and skill, and so re-watched the game. I must say that my initial opinion was confirmed, that Alibert did very well and acted exactly right on these incidents. It is a shame that McGuire got injured at all, and especially in the manner he did so, as he has been playing very well. Without him and Buderus they could struggle a bit in the semi.
It really was a wonderful game. We have had some treats in SL this year.


totally agree with this.. and could make the club call very very difficult

#54 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,989 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 11:53 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 15 2010, 09:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not sure what you are not grasping tbh. The penalty was for a late tackle by Donald. Whether we think it was late is not the point, the TJ and the VR did, and gave a penalty where the ball landed from Richards' kick.
Just to clarify - the TJ came on saying it was a late tackle, the ref thought it was fine. Alibert sought clarification from the VR who gave a decision on exactly what he had been asked about.



Just to be ultra-pedantic Alibert asked the VR his advice, not for a decision. Only the referee can give any decision on the field of play; the other officials can simply give him their views of what occured.


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#55 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,989 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 11:58 AM

QUOTE (petero @ Sep 14 2010, 09:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This " we have the technology so why not use it" syndrome has frankly gone beyond it's limitations.


I disagree. It is simply moral blindness and arrogance to ignore technology that can improve the standard of decision making. When only referees made decisions things were far worse. Can I also assume that you would exclude any video reference to the disciplinary panel?


QUOTE
So much so that the Aussie commentators, who incidentally, speak a little more clearly not to mention objectively, upon this subject are noticeably becoming quite critical of the entire VR system.
I find agreement with them on that as I personally believe that as with all items such as this the controlling element of those that grab it is never ending and, the need to go ever further is always paramount in their beliefs.



The Aussie commentators speak what many fans call "common sense" which normally means inconsistent rubbish based upon what they would like to happen after every incident, usually based upon how the game used to be played when they were active. To call their comments objective is really beyond a joke.


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)

#56 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,616 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 11:53 AM

QUOTE (Blind side johnny @ Sep 15 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I disagree. It is simply moral blindness and arrogance to ignore technology that can improve the standard of decision making. When only referees made decisions things were far worse. Can I also assume that you would exclude any video reference to the disciplinary panel?

If the video were always correct that may be a reasonable position to hold but we had an incident in Cardiff a year back where the video ref jumped in and gave a blatantly incorrect decision, followed up by enquiries and apologies.

At least back in the 'good old days' players accepted the decision, right or right, ('cos the ref was ALWAYS right wink.gif ) and us speccies went to the pub and debated it. To be honest, I don't know if it was actually better, but it seemed to cause less controversy..........or am I just looking back with rose coloured specs on??

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#57 Errol Stock

Errol Stock
  • Coach
  • 479 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 12:19 PM

QUOTE (Bulliac @ Sep 16 2010, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
or am I just looking back with rose coloured specs on??

Aye lad - I think you may be..

Always remember - there is no such thing as the "good old days".

I think the VR is fantastic - its added another dimension the game, the wait, the result, the controversy, the drama and the shots of the crowd tingling with nerves - just add to the thrills for me.

I accept there have been errors - but regardless - where there is a human interaction with the technology, errors will be made as thats what we do. Its not good when you are on the wrong end of it, but without the benefit of the re-run, the original instant decision has a high possibility of being wrong anyway.

I fail to understand why some berate "our" system when the World Cup puffball pundits as screaming out for FIFA to bring it in. And just look at the attitude of their "chairman" - twerp. cool.gif

NB. And as I hit "Submit" - I am wondering if Michael Withers try in the 99 GF would have been awarded with no VR!!!


#58 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,616 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 01:12 PM

QUOTE (Errol Stock @ Sep 16 2010, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Aye lad - I think you may be..

Always remember - there is no such thing as the "good old days".

I think the VR is fantastic - its added another dimension the game, the wait, the result, the controversy, the drama and the shots of the crowd tingling with nerves - just add to the thrills for me.

I accept there have been errors - but regardless - where there is a human interaction with the technology, errors will be made as thats what we do. Its not good when you are on the wrong end of it, but without the benefit of the re-run, the original instant decision has a high possibility of being wrong anyway.

I fail to understand why some berate "our" system when the World Cup puffball pundits as screaming out for FIFA to bring it in. And just look at the attitude of their "chairman" - twerp. cool.gif

NB. And as I hit "Submit" - I am wondering if Michael Withers try in the 99 GF would have been awarded with no VR!!!

Oh, I know about the 'good old days', that's why I used inverted commas, but I'm still not sure that the VR has been an improvement, and if it's not a definite improvement then, for me, it's just an expensive addition which isn't giving value for money.

To go along with the same argument, I do wonder about the annual sillies thrown in by Red Hall. This season's silly has been the "obstruction" where no-one is actually obstructed, though I do think this has been trialled before. The VR has been used on this nearly every time (at non Sky games the obstructions seem much more clear cut, the 'old type' obvious ones) and I wonder if they would have brought this in if the VR hadn't existed?

Dunno whether the VR changed the outcome of the Wither's incident (though it was actually Leon Pryce's 'try' which was disallowed), Withers denied to the end that he touched the ball, and watching replays there is absolutely no variation in the ball's flight as his hand moves towards it, so for me it should have been given. Whether the ref on the field would have given it is something we'll never know, I guess. tongue.gif

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#59 Blind side johnny

Blind side johnny
  • Coach
  • 8,989 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 01:25 PM

QUOTE (Bulliac @ Sep 16 2010, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh, I know about the 'good old days', that's why I used inverted commas, but I'm still not sure that the VR has been an improvement, and if it's not a definite improvement then, for me, it's just an expensive addition which isn't giving value for money.

To go along with the same argument, I do wonder about the annual sillies thrown in by Red Hall. This season's silly has been the "obstruction" where no-one is actually obstructed, though I do think this has been trialled before. The VR has been used on this nearly every time (at non Sky games the obstructions seem much more clear cut, the 'old type' obvious ones) and I wonder if they would have brought this in if the VR hadn't existed?



Just to extend this a little: in the "good old days" every "dummy runner" would have been pinged for obstruction every time. I do believe that this is a tactic that is now blatantly overused and now allows the defenders to "take" the dummy (and collision) and negate the move.


Believe what you see, don't see what you believe.


John Ray (1627 - 1705)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users