weloveyouwakefield2 Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 We really need to get rid of referees saying try or no try its a joke and makes a mockery of the game , thank you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 We really need to get rid of saying everything they don't like makes a mockery of the game, Mercl! 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark S Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 A couple of suggestions on the video ref; 1. Get rid of the on field decision 2. Limit the review time to 1 minute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenilworth Tiger Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 "Can you just slow it down one more time to see where I can give Wigan a penalty" Now then, it's a race between Sandie....and Fairburn....and the little man is in........yeees he's in. I, just like those Castleford supporters felt that the ball should have gone to David Plange but he put the bit betwen his teeth...and it was a try Kevin Ward - best player I have ever seen The real Mick Gledhill is what you see on here, a Bradford fan ........, but deep down knows that Bradford are just not good enough to challenge the likes of Leeds & St Helens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 We really need to get rid of referees saying try or no try its a joke and makes a mockery of the game , thank you.... Why they have to do it all the time when the vrs not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weloveyouwakefield2 Posted June 25, 2016 Author Share Posted June 25, 2016 Why they have to do it all the time when the vrs not there.But the video referee is there and proves a no try yet gives it on the technicality the ref has said its a try.... Bonkers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun mc Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Apart from the Manfredi decision, thought Robert Hicks was good as a video ref as he gave far more explanation for the viewers than most do His hands were tied with the Manfredi one however Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gates1 Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Apart from the Manfredi decision, thought Robert Hicks was good as a video ref as he gave far more explanation for the viewers than most do His hands were tied with the Manfredi one however He could have simply said "he doesn't touch the ball no try". As that was pretty clear to everyone who has seen the clip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padge Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 He could have simply said "he doesn't touch the ball no try". As that was pretty clear to everyone who has seen the clip! The problem was that there was no view that showed he didn't touch it, there was only views that showed he may have. I have been banging on about this since they brought it in, its stupid, should be scrapped, anybody with any sense would have disallowed it except the video ref who couldn't because his hands were tied by the stupid interpretation brought by the current clowns in charge. Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007 Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king" This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super major Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 The problem was that there was no view that showed he didn't touch it, there was only views that showed he may have. I have been banging on about this since they brought it in, its stupid, should be scrapped, anybody with any sense would have disallowed it except the video ref who couldn't because his hands were tied by the stupid interpretation brought by the current clowns in charge. Surely there is a case for the ref to be able say I don't know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevereed100 Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 The problem was that there was no view that showed he didn't touch it, there was only views that showed he may have. I have been banging on about this since they brought it in, its stupid, should be scrapped, anybody with any sense would have disallowed it except the video ref who couldn't because his hands were tied by the stupid interpretation brought by the current clowns in charge. Every view failed to show he touched it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Every view failed to show he touched it.... Yes every view failed to show he touched it, the world agreed, the ref gave it as a matter of course given how close it was and how fast real time has a habit of happening, but that decision did some harm to the whole process. But shaun mc is right up to that point Hicks had been a fanastic example of how to do it and quite clearly has been watching the bunker and that was one of the better things from the coverage. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 If there had been no VR and the ref had awarded the try would there have been an outcry when the after match video shows it shouldn't have been awarded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 If there had been no VR and the ref had awarded the try would there have been an outcry when the after match video shows it shouldn't have been awarded? I think you're right but there's an outcry after almost every single match by one side or the other. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled Wiganer Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Show he failed or failed to show, that's the question... It can be very hard to prove a negative. I don't mind the approach, generally and would certainly instroduce a time limit to it. The one caveat I would add, which would have come into play here, is that rather than make it absolute I would say that if it looks far more likely than not (as opposed to proven) then the VR can change the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 What happened to the option of the video ref being uncertain and sending it back to the on field ref for their final say?(Refs call?) Or was that just in the NRL? Either way, when you're almost taking it down to a sub atomic level to see if any particles made contact then it's a bit OTT. Video ref is getting ludicrous now. I don't care where the refs call was used, perfectly good idea. I don't think it's the VR but the rules that are the the problem or in this case the interpretation. It was one time where it just sounded like he bottled making the decision. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 What happened to the option of the video ref being uncertain and sending it back to the on field ref for their final say?(Refs call?) Or was that just in the NRL? Either way, when you're almost taking it down to a sub atomic level to see if any particles made contact then it's a bit OTT. Video ref is getting ludicrous now. That's basically what happened but because of the way it's done now there's no need to go back because the refs already given his decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeF Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 What happened to the option of the video ref being uncertain and sending it back to the on field ref for their final say?(Refs call?) Or was that just in the NRL? Either way, when you're almost taking it down to a sub atomic level to see if any particles made contact then it's a bit OTT. Video ref is getting ludicrous now. Just NRL In this case the try would have been awarded on refs call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padge Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Every view failed to show he touched it.... It didn't, that was what caused the problem, there were views where his hand was hidden by the ball and ones with the ball in front of his hand, there was no view that showed separation, thus his hands were tied because the ref had called try. He could only disallow it if he had a view that showed the separation, he didn't have it. It would probably have never been given under the old system, but we are not using that though. Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007 Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king" This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeydo Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Hicks may have explained things well but for the early video ref call on the Solomona no try he kept saying clearly contact between Manfredi's shoulder and a Cas players head when it looked like a head clash to me. Am sure Manfredi's shoulder didn't hit the Cas players head. He might have done well explaining things but I thought Hicks was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Frightful Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 If we stick with both "downward pressure" and "in control" as requirements for scoring a try, most VR referral "tries" would be disallowed instead of looking for the still frame that appears to show a pinky brushing against the ball when it bounces off the floor. Manfredi's "try" would have been laughed out of the VR room if they used those rules. Hull FC....The Sons of God... (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Yes but surely given the ref could see the replay, he then could change his mind in the case of a blatant no try? I don't think it was a blatant no try there was certainly some doubt. IMO the BBC didn't do Hicks any favours by showing it too fast each time he asked them to slow it down and they continued to show it at the same speed making it almost impossible to say for certain he didn't get a finger on it. Then at the end of the programme the BBC showed a really slowed down version that did show he didn't get a finger to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 If we stick with both "downward pressure" and "in control" as requirements for scoring a try, most VR referral "tries" would be disallowed instead of looking for the still frame that appears to show a pinky brushing against the ball when it bounces off the floor. Manfredi's "try" would have been laughed out of the VR room if they used those rules. I did think control wasn't in the rules or was that said by someone on this forum? "I don't think it was a blatant no try there was certainly some doubt." Not in our house my missus was shouting at the telly when he missed the ball the first time round! (only with more hair). Then instead of laughing out the try, we laughed out the decision. :laugh: 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevereed100 Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 It didn't, that was what caused the problem, there were views where his hand was hidden by the ball and ones with the ball in front of his hand, there was no view that showed separation, thus his hands were tied because the ref had called try. He could only disallow it if he had a view that showed the separation, he didn't have it. It would probably have never been given under the old system, but we are not using that though. Might not have shown separation but nowhere did it show touching. Manfred could have helped and shown a bit of sportsmanship, a quiet word with the Ref? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbruce Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Might not have shown separation but nowhere did it show touching. Manfred could have helped and shown a bit of sportsmanship, a quiet word with the Ref? With the ref sending it up as a try it didn't have to show touching it had to show clear separation. Once the ref makes his decision and sends it upstairs its out of his hands no matter what Manfredi says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.