Eamonn McManus on CC Final referee

[EagleEyePie]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Its interesting to see people here basically painting themselves in to a corner of arguing in favour of putting referees in the difficult position of having their impartiality questioned. 

It is ok to say McManus comes across as a bitter fool but he might have point that referees shouldn't be put in that position. 

But he's the one putting them in that position! He's the one who has come up with this ridiculous narrative that Hicks couldn't possibly be impartial and that it would inevitably lead to accentuated criticism purely on the basis of HIS accentuated criticism. It's ludicrous

[Clogiron]

We get that SL have a downer on the RFL but if the referees are a problem why don't they take them 'in house'?  Because like everything else they don't want to have to pay out the cash to do so.

Either put up or shut up

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Its interesting to see people here basically painting themselves in to a corner of arguing in favour of putting referees in the difficult position of having their impartiality questioned. 

It is ok to say McManus comes across as a bitter fool but he might have point that referees shouldn't be put in that position. 

That part of your argument I have some sympathy for.

The part where you said Hicks didn't go to the VR because there is a culture of criticism for ref's using the video ref was the part I disagreed with. There is literally no evidence for this and the fact Hicks did go to the VR multiple times during the same game completely refutes the claim.

[Kayakman]

Hicks missed the call but it was a hard one to make...should have checked the video but didn't.   That call was not what gave Warrington the victory.

By publishing his thoughts in the program the Chairman is totally out of order.

Guy sounds like a big sucky baby.

[EagleEyePie]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

He isn't the one putting them in that position. They put themselves in that position weeks ago. 

If there isn't that publicity and engagement then there is no question to be asked. Referees have to be above reproach. Not just impartial but seen to be impartial. Not just not corrupt but seen to be not corrupt. They have to be beyond question. 

 

The questioning of the publicity and engagement is only happening AFTER the game. If the club had questioned it beforehand maybe I'd have had more time for the claims that it was 'inevitable' that people would question Hicks' calls more in light of that event (although unlikely because it's a ridiculous claim to begin with).

Refs being 'beyond question' is largely impossible if people ask stupid questions.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Then why didn't he? If there is no negative consequences to him going to the VR. If we aren't starting from a point that going to the VR is a bad thing and should be avoided. 

What possible reason could he give for not going to the VR?

Because he didn't think he needed to. He clearly felt he had enough confidence in his decision that he didn't require the services of the VR.

It doesn't matter if the decision was right or wrong, he didn't refer it because he didn't feel he needed to.

[Dunbar]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

But if there is no negative consequences of going to the VR and going to the VR isn't a bad thing. Why not do it anyway? Why not check? 

Even if you are certain why not check? There is no downside to doing so, or is there a culture within the game that sees the VR as something to be avoided where possible? 

Because he didn't feel he needed to.

[ELBOWSEYE]

He certainly poured fuel on this fire and picked up a spade to carry on digging. He says the RFL and officials have lessons to learn yet he seems to be the one unwilling to learn . He still blames a referee for a decision in the 3rd minute of an 80 minute game, yet fails to see there were only two factors in the Wembley result. Warrington players and Saints players, one set played the game of their life and one set failed again under  the present coach in a big game. I dont hold any hope the compliance committee will come down hard on him after what happened with Kenny Edward's. 

 

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But why did he need to feel he had to? Why not do it anyway? 

Your argument is there is no downside to using the VR, no culture within the game encouraging him not to. So why not use it? there is no downside. Only upside. 

Because he was confident enough with his decision that he felt he didn't need the validation/check of the VR.

This is so self evident that I am amazed I even have to type it.

Your argument implies that every potential try should be referred to the VR before it is awarded.  And before you reply that this is ridiculous as some are clearly a try or no try then that is the very thing that Hicks thought about this one.

[EagleEyePie]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But it was always going to only happen after the game. 

People will only ask stupid questions if we put referees in stupid positions. Lets make things easy for them. 

Why was it always only going to happen after the game? Eamon McManus said in his statement it was inevitable Hicks would be under heightened scrutiny and that it should have been avoided. So he's saying he new beforehand it was a bad idea and shouldn't have happened. Why didn't he raise these issues beforehand if it's of such importance? Do you think he'd have raised the issue had Saints won and the game had passed by without incident? Of course he wouldn't. It's only an issue to him now - and only 'inevitable' - because he's concocted his own narrative about why Hicks made a certain decision based on a completely unrelated incident.

The ref for the Challenge Cup final should have been the best ref. It was decided that was Hicks. That's exactly how refereeing appointments should work.

If McManus and anyone else thinks referees should be appointed based on how much their decisions could be questioned after the game based on some tenuous link they it's a crazy precedent. If Saints get to the Grand Final and play Warrington, does that mean Robert Hicks should not be allowed to officiate, even if he's been the best ref over the course of the season? McManus' pathetic statements mean that it's inevitable that there will be heightened scrutiny on Hicks if that was the case.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If there is no downside to the VR and no encouragement not to use the VR when possible. Why not refer every try?

Why wouldn't you want every try referred? 

The conversation isn't what I want or not.  The conversation is why did Hicks not go to the VR and the simple answer is that he didn't feel that he needed to because he was able to make the decision himself. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If there is no downside to the VR and no encouragement not to use the VR when possible. Why not refer every try?

Why wouldn't you want every try referred? 

Time.

[EagleEyePie]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

You think im defending McManus. Im not. Im saying we make it easy for referees by not putting them in positions where people can question their integrity.

It seems much more likely to solve the problem than putting referees in a position where their integrity can be questioned. Then complaining after they make a huge error that people are questioning their integrity. 

But people always question the integrity of the officials. It's literally one of the worst things about our sport at the moment. If you start choosing officials based on spurious attempts to question their integrity it simply serves to suggest their integrity is in question.

[Just Browny]

I would seriously advise forum colleagues not to waste a sunny Sunday afternoon arguing with Scotchy. It will be winter soon and then we will have plenty of time to contest his argument that referees shouldn't be put in positions where their integrity might be questioned, which presumably includes 'on a rugby field'.

Just crack open a beer and enjoy McManus' latest rant.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Him feeling he didn't need to, doesn't preclude him from using it. He certainly could still have used it. And considering he could, and there was no downside to doing so. Why not? 

Are you really arguing that somebody should do something that they don't feel that they need to do simply because they can do it?

Seriously?

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The answer, which we both know, that you are studiously dancing around avoiding admitting, is that he didn't go to save time, because the VR takes time and people ##### and moan about referees 'wasting time' going to the Video Referee to check their decisions and referees are encouraged, where they feel they can, to avoid using the Video Referee. Hicks' mistake is the inevitable result of that. 

I am not dancing around this.  I have stated quite clearly that I think your argument about Hicks not going to the VR because of some kind of pressure not to is nonsense.  The fact he did refer decisions to the VR in the very same game completely refutes your logic.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

No, im saying that however confident he was, was kind of irrelevant considering he was wrong. So there was obvious upside to him using the VR even if he was certain. That being he can be certain and be wrong. 

So considering there is an upside to using the VR even when you are certain, and there is no downside to using the VR. Why wouldnt he use it?

So, there is no pressure not to use it. There is no downside or perceived downside to using it. There is no upside to not using it. Then why not? 

Feels like we are stuck in an infinite loop here.

We have landed on the following positions as far as I can see.

You feel that there is a culture of pressure on the referees not to use the video referee which is why Hicks didn't use it even though he was actually certain about his decision. And further (because it is an extension of the logic that you gave used and so you cannot escape it) that you are now arguing that every single try should be checked by the VR.

I think he didn't use the VR because he didn't think he needed to.

[Cheshire Setter]

Here we are, discussing a random no-try decision that would have been confirmed as no-try if it had gone up to the VR as a no-try under current rules.   It had no bearing on the game as there were plenty of other controversial calls including Walmsley not playing the ball correctly in the run up without penalty.

So instead of discussing McManus’ behaviour or Saints tactical decisions, we are instead wasting our breath on stuff that has no relevance.

Eamonn Sir, that was a political masterclass in distraction from current issues, and I doff my cap to you.   Respect.

 

[hullste]

If you take your Saint's hating blinkers off. Consider that it was the team you support in the final, the referee picked had been engaging in publicity stunts with your rival team in the week or so before the final like Hicks did. Add to that you had the Knowles no try, the Percival no try which should have resulted in a scrum to Saint's and the Grace knock on which should have been a Warrington knock on prior to their first try. Three big decisions early in the game, there is not one person on this forum who wouldn't feel aggrieved for their team. McManus is simply calling out the RFL for putting Hicks in that position in the first place. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

1 minute ago, hullste said:

If you take your Saint's hating blinkers off. Consider that it was the team you support in the final, the referee picked had been engaging in publicity stunts with your rival team in the week or so before the final like Hicks did. Add to that you had the Knowles no try, the Percival no try which should have resulted in a scrum to Saint's and the Grace knock on which should have been a Warrington knock on prior to their first try. Three big decisions early in the game, there is not one person on this forum who would feel aggrieved for their team. McManus is simply calling out the RFL for putting Hicks in that position in the first place. 

What about concentrating on making his side perform in  big games,something he can control. 

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Im not arguing all tries should be checked by the VR. Im asking you to explain your position. 

You have argued quite vociferously on this thread, that there is absolutely no downsides to the VR and no encouragement not to use them. Im saying that some people do perceive downsides and there is a culture of encouraging the referee not to use the VR where possible. 

Im asking you to explain why, if there are no downsides, and no encouragement not to use the VR and considering there are the considerable upsides of using the VR (getting the decision right) and considerable downsides to not using them (getting the decision wrong), any referee would choose not to use the VR even if he didn't think he needed to?

But you are arguing that all the tries should be checked by the VR.  If you say that a referee should use the VR even if they are 100% confident of the decision (because, as you put it, there is no downside) then this is essentially saying every try must be checked.

My overall point is that I do not believe that Hicks didn't go to the VR because he feared that it would be received negatively.  I believe that he didn't go to the VR because he was confident in his decision.  One of the pieces of evidence I use for this is the fact he did go to the VR several times later in the game.

[hullste]

5 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

What about concentrating on making his side perform in  big games,something he can control. 

That's a separate issue, I'm talking about the RFL and their amateurish decision and also ask fans to consider their response if it had been their team on the receiving end of it all. 

[Damien]

23 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Feels like we are stuck in an infinite loop here.

I suggest you remember this before bothering to post again 

[ELBOWSEYE]

Just now, hullste said:

That's a separate issue, I'm talking about the RFL and their amateurish decision and also ask fans to consider their response if it had been their team on the receiving end of it all. 

Every week some team thinks they are on the receiving end of decisions that they perceive went against them its part of sport and life. What this subject is of a chairman/owner going in a public domain complaining because they lost a final simply because  they thought they had a right to win and forgot to realise they had to perform to win.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I suggest you remember this before bothering to post again 

You are right.

[Damien]

Just now, Dunbar said:

You are right.

These threads only go one way and that is everyone else just gives up.