7 replies to this topic

[simonwref]

Gotta say the new system in the nrl is working really well.
The on field ref gives his opinion try or no try and then refers it to the video ref. The video ref can only reverse the on field refs decision if there is clear evidence to the contrary.
I think it gives the on field ref much more credibility, rather than at times, last season, it appeared they were passing the buck. Thumbs up from me.

[G Las D]

Agree wholeheartedly.
By the new system the on-field ref does their job and decisions are quicker, more efficient and so far more accurate IMO.

[thirteenthman]

Was it the Tigers v Panthers game yesterday where there was a try awarded after the ref said it was a try, but if he'd called it as no try, it might've been disallowed? On the whole though, it seems a pretty good system. In fact, the refs appear to be doing a pretty good job all round in the NRL, particularly in trying to speed up the ruck by penalising the hands on the ball. All we need now is a few more close matches like the Rabbits v Sharks game this morning!!!

[YCKonstantine]

I don't understand the difference. Isn't the video ref saying it is or isn't a try at the end of it all anyway?

[G Las D]

Previously IMO the vid ref over analised everything often frame by frame to come up with a decision with the daft benefit of the doubt decision still possible.This season it's so much quicker and sp far appears more accurate. The main point being the Vid ref can't over rule the ref's decision without proof to the contrary. So over examination isn't required - time and frustration saved.

Now the only problem is if the ref sees a try scored and refers it to the video ref to see if a defender was obstructed in the run up.
The pre season guidance given to refs on this is very very unforgiving. So an attacker running into a defender ten metres or more away will be ruled to have obstructed even though he did not interfere in the try scoring.
As Freddie in his commentary said in the example of the Cooper Cronk touchdown that was given no-try on Thursday - Don't send such a question to the video ref because they are given no discretion by the hard and fast ruling they are bound by and again common sense goes out the window,

[R L Winger]

I think making the refs call TRY or NO TRY is a great idea.....But they can stick the obstruction rule where the sun doesn't shine, It sucks moose balls big time a shepherd is a shepherd and that rule should stay in the game. The pathetic touches you get penalized for now, is a total joke and not Rugby League at all.

Edited by R L Winger, 25 March 2013 - 12:56 PM.

[bill]

yes the obstructions are a joke 2 trys disallowed when 2 defending players in front of the " obstructed " player didn't make the tackle how the hell would of a defending player behind those 2 have.Then you get poor ol Sam Thiaday who was definately held back would of made the tacklet called no obstruction and for good measure he gets suspened for a week .That was a joke.Sorry but the refs are just as bad this year as everyother year.It is good that they have to make a decision before they go upstairs .I would like to see the video ref make a decision on forward passes they do with off side and I can't see where the difference is.

[bobbruce]

yes the obstructions are a joke 2 trys disallowed when 2 defending players in front of the " obstructed " player didn't make the tackle how the hell would of a defending player behind those 2 have.Then you get poor ol Sam Thiaday who was definately held back would of made the tacklet called no obstruction and for good measure he gets suspened for a week .That was a joke.Sorry but the refs are just as bad this year as everyother year.It is good that they have to make a decision before they go upstairs .I would like to see the video ref make a decision on forward passes they do with off side and I can't see where the difference is.

Offside is a line decision a forward pass isn't.