Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
philipw

18-19 Oct: World Cup 9s (TV)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DavidM said:

Fast moving and fast decision making which is a joy

It's interesting when you look back through this thread that people were saying that the video ref must come into 9's to get the decisions right.

But the best team in the tournament won. And if we didn't have the video ref in Super League the best team would still win. Same with the NRL.

TV officials is something we have been brainwashing into thinking are essential to sport to guarantee a fair outcome. It really isn't true. If we let referees make their own decisions they will get some right and some wrong but the best teams will win in the end.

Was every Premier League season and every Premier League champion rendered invalid because VAR was only introduced this year? 

Were the McEnroe vs. Borg Wimbledon finals invalid just because we didn't have Hawkeye?

We don't need TV to referee our game, let the refs do it. It will all be ok in the end.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It's interesting when you look back through this thread that people were saying that the video ref must come into 9's to get the decisions right.

But the best team in the tournament won. And if we didn't have the video ref in Super League the best team would still win. Same with the NRL.

TV officials is something we have been brainwashing into thinking are essential to sport to guarantee a fair outcome. It really isn't true. If we let referees make their own decisions they will get some right and some wrong but the best teams will win in the end.

Was every Premier League season and every Premier League champion rendered invalid because VAR was only introduced this year? 

Were the McEnroe vs. Borg Wimbledon finals invalid just because we didn't have Hawkeye?

We don't need TV to referee our game, let the refs do it. It will all be ok in the end.

Whatever happens, VR or no VR, one referee or two, someone will claim that any given decision is the greatest injustice in human history. That'll be sport, then.


Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. (Susan Ertz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Futtocks said:

Whatever happens, VR or no VR, one referee or two, someone will claim that any given decision is the greatest injustice in human history. That'll be sport, then.

The thing is, if you look at two of the biggest moments in English sporting history, the goal from Geoff Hurst against West Germany which may or may not have crossed the line and the Maradona 'Hand of God', they would have been resolved with technology and we would have lost two of the most iconic sporting moments. 

Sport is about passion and emotion, it doesn't need to be this clinical. I know we get more results right as a result of technology but I also think we lose something as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Whatever happens, VR or no VR, one referee or two, someone will claim that any given decision is the greatest injustice in human history. That'll be sport, then.

I’m finding football fascinating in this respect . It’ll deal with incidents of fact ... it’ll take away controversy and confusion etc etc . That’s all going well then . In reality there’s still subjectivity , still opinion ... only someone else’s . Introduce this and the nature of the game changes and it just infiltrates further and further . Cricket is not so intolerable as it’s deliberately limited , but in terms of rugby league the sooner they get shot of it the better . I watch rugby , we all get home by half past four , moan at the ref’s decisions but no one bothers and we all go back next week . Have a VR and the officials use it as a comfort blanket and actually stop making important decisions 

Edited by DavidM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I’m finding football fascinating in this respect . It’ll deal with incidents of fact ... it’ll take away controversy and confusion etc etc . That’s all going well then . In reality there’s still subjectivity , still opinion ... only someone else’s . Introduce this and the nature of the game changes and it just infiltrates further and further . Cricket is not so intolerable as it’s deliberately limited , but in terms of rugby league the sooner they get shot of it the better . I watch rugby , we all get home by half past four , moan at the ref’s decisions but no one bothers and we all go back next week . Have a VR and the officials use it as a comfort blanket and actually stop making important decisions 

Some folks are still picking at mental scabs from decades ago. Mention Chris Joynt and voluntary tackles, for instance. People like this can't be helped, because they even moan about the refereeing in matches their team won.


Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. (Susan Ertz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of the appeal of nines is the numerous games over a couple of days, the short games and the general speed of the game. Stopping the game for Video ref decisions doesn't make sense to me in that context and adds nothing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Some folks are still picking at mental scabs from decades ago. Mention Chris Joynt and voluntary tackles, for instance. People like this can't be helped, because they even moan about the refereeing in matches their team won.

Well indeed , therapy needs to come into then . Monday morning needs to be let it go time , you need to free up space to moan next week . But it’s slightly ironic that a VR never eliminates this , it’s just intrinsic in the game 

Edited by DavidM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The thing is, if you look at two of the biggest moments in English sporting history, the goal from Geoff Hurst against West Germany which may or may not have crossed the line and the Maradona 'Hand of God', they would have been resolved with technology and we would have lost two of the most iconic sporting moments. 

Sport is about passion and emotion, it doesn't need to be this clinical. I know we get more results right as a result of technology but I also think we lose something as well.

Things evolve. It's really odd to decide that one specific are of the game wont evolve in spite of the obvious benefits.

I dont think the wrong decisions we saw added anything to the spectacle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Things evolve. It's really odd to decide that one specific are of the game wont evolve in spite of the obvious benefits.

I dont think the wrong decisions we saw added anything to the spectacle

But watching the nines you see that when they make calls due to necessity they get it right to an overwhelming degree . A ref , touchie and in goal touchie does the job . The small minority are wrong or debatable but it’s myth you don’t get the same with a VR . It turns refs into robots refereeing by remote control abrogating responsibility to someone else purely because it’s there . Get them back officiating games , and 99% of the game still does this amazingly enough 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Things evolve. It's really odd to decide that one specific are of the game wont evolve in spite of the obvious benefits.

I dont think the wrong decisions we saw added anything to the spectacle

My argument is that there are no obvious benefits, that is a presumption you have made. Yes, decisions are more accurate but they steal the emotion from the sport as we all stand around waiting to see if we can celebrate.

And in the end the best team wins anyway.

I quoted two iconic incidents in world sport to emphasise the clinical nature of the VR. I don't expect wrong decisions to 'add' anything to the spectacle, my point is that the VR takes things away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DavidM said:

But watching the nines you see that when they make calls due to necessity they get it right to an overwhelming degree . A ref , touchie and in goal touchie does the job . The small minority are wrong or debatable but it’s myth you don’t get the same with a VR . It turns refs into robots refereeing by remote control abrogating responsibility to someone else purely because it’s there . Get them back officiating games , and 99% of the game still does this amazingly enough 

Careful! That's dangerously close to admitting that fully-qualified, experienced professional Rugby League referees are actually good at their job. You'll get letters... in green ink.

Edited by Futtocks
  • Haha 1

Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. (Susan Ertz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

My argument is that there are no obvious benefits, that is a presumption you have made. Yes, decisions are more accurate but they steal the emotion from the sport as we all stand around waiting to see if we can celebrate.

And in the end the best team wins anyway.

I quoted two iconic incidents in world sport to emphasise the clinical nature of the VR. I don't expect wrong decisions to 'add' anything to the spectacle, my point is that the VR takes things away.

There are obvious benefits. Fewer incorrect decisions.

I cannot think of another situation whereby we would want more incorrect decisions or we would be better for doing so.

And whilst those incidents are well known they are infamous rather than iconic. In the same way as Mike Tyson biting evander holyfields ear or Eric cantona kicking a fan. I dont think anyone would want to create  a situation where we had more of those incidents.

The fact is we didnt start with VR because the technology wasnt there. But if we had, nobody would be arguing for us to not have them. 

There are very few fans who are young or new to the game who want rid of the VR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There are obvious benefits. Fewer incorrect decisions.

I cannot think of another situation whereby we would want more incorrect decisions or we would be better for doing so.

And whilst those incidents are well known they are infamous rather than iconic. In the same way as Mike Tyson biting evander holyfields ear or Eric cantona kicking a fan. I dont think anyone would want to create  a situation where we had more of those incidents.

The fact is we didnt start with VR because the technology wasnt there. But if we had, nobody would be arguing for us to not have them. 

There are very few fans who are young or new to the game who want rid of the VR. 

I do wonder how you got from removing video referees to players kicking fans or biting each other.

However, let's leave that to one side.

History has taught me to stop this conversation with you and so I will be doing just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DavidM said:

But watching the nines you see that when they make calls due to necessity they get it right to an overwhelming degree . A ref , touchie and in goal touchie does the job . The small minority are wrong or debatable but it’s myth you don’t get the same with a VR . It turns refs into robots refereeing by remote control abrogating responsibility to someone else purely because it’s there . Get them back officiating games , and 99% of the game still does this amazingly enough 

Even if that were true, it seems odd to take an important area of the game such as officiating and not aim for those gains that the VR gives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I do wonder how you got from removing video referees to players kicking fans or biting each other.

However, let's leave that to one side.

History has taught me to stop this conversation with you and so I will be doing just that.

The thread was pretty obvious, why are only your examples of blatant cheating the ones allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic, and this has probably been discussed in the 32 pages already but England’s side was predictably ineffective. They do not have the mobility or agility in their side. Players like Gildart, Newman should’ve been there and others would’ve got in from Saints (like Makinson) if it wasn’t for the Grand Final. The likes of Handley, Hall and McGillvary are not mobile enough. It was disappointing we couldn’t showcase our true ability. The likes of Bateman, Currie and Hodgson would also have been good to see. Tomkins and perhaps Graham were the only ones who impressed. Watts was surprisingly disappointing 

It was also an eye opener how far the women’s team are behind Australia and NZ - we just don’t have the athletes they do. I’m sure we’ll make vast improvements over the coming years but the schism is vast at the moment. Hardcastle impressed me though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

It was also an eye opener how far the women’s team are behind Australia and NZ - we just don’t have the athletes they do. I’m sure we’ll make vast improvements over the coming years but the schism is vast at the moment. Hardcastle impressed me though 

Having seen several Jillaroos v Ferns clashes over the last few years, I knew we'd find it hard against them. We do have quality, but like the men, we went for muscle over pace.

The women's NRL is quite a few few years of development ahead of the women's SL overall. We have individual talents who'd do very well in the WNRL, though.

Edited by Futtocks
  • Like 1

Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. (Susan Ertz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Back on topic, and this has probably been discussed in the 32 pages already but England’s side was predictably ineffective. They do not have the mobility or agility in their side. Players like Gildart, Newman should’ve been there and others would’ve got in from Saints (like Makinson) if it wasn’t for the Grand Final. The likes of Handley, Hall and McGillvary are not mobile enough. It was disappointing we couldn’t showcase our true ability. The likes of Bateman, Currie and Hodgson would also have been good to see. Tomkins and perhaps Graham were the only ones who impressed. Watts was surprisingly disappointing 

It was also an eye opener how far the women’s team are behind Australia and NZ - we just don’t have the athletes they do. I’m sure we’ll make vast improvements over the coming years but the schism is vast at the moment. Hardcastle impressed me though 

The thing we need to learn is, that a 9s comp which contained none of the GB squad and was instead made up of players like Newman, Gildart, Handley, Walker, Evalds, Shaul, Trueman, Lees etc would still be a great comp to watch.

The England knights dont have any more games scheduled in at all. Players can get together, train together, have a development camp, play a 9s comp. 

And for places like wales and ireland and jamaica then can keep players in touch, get them playing together etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The thing we need to learn is, that a 9s comp which contained none of the GB squad and was instead made up of players like Newman, Gildart, Handley, Walker, Evalds, Shaul, Trueman, Lees etc would still be a great comp to watch.

The England knights dont have any more games scheduled in at all. Players can get together, train together, have a development camp, play a 9s comp. 

And for places like wales and ireland and jamaica then can keep players in touch, get them playing together etc.

Cherrypick today's Knights side, and you'd have a pretty useful Nines squad. Evalds, Minikin, Richardson, and few more mobile, hungry young players. Call them the Knighnes, if you really hate the English language.

Edited by Futtocks
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. (Susan Ertz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do wonder why we find it such a surprise that Australia keeps unearthing such wonderful athletes in Rugby League. 

In the eastern states of Australia, Rugby League is the number one sport and all the talented athletes will gravitate to the sport. Over here we are a long way down the pecking order unless the young player has grown up in a specific 'League' area.

Our mens team are competitive despite the odds while the women will catch up after being exposed to the quality of play they need to aspire to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a point on the coverage, the fawning of certain NRL players by Anasta and Walters was vomit inducing. Up there with Terry O’Connor and ‘he’s a quality player’. 

In particular their constant praise of Brian To’o. The guy is average at best. He can bust a tackle for sure but for every other one he does, he makes a mistake 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...