Skeletal tracking - forward passes

[fighting irish]

21 hours ago, DavidM said:

I do . That is completely the wrong mindset to begin with . These are decisions that are just so straightforward it’s ridiculous . I don’t know where you go from there . There is no doubt in some of these , we’ve morphed from unclear and unsighted to I’m petrified of making a decision I’m looking straight  at

I think another motivator, for going to the video ref in these circumstances is to convince the moronic referee baiters that they've made the right decision and to stop the arguments (in the crowd) and the heckling. 

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

This is from Effectiviology.com

No beach of copyright intended.

Strawman Argument - A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support.

A bit of rhetoric to help make a point doesn`t amount to a strawman.

If you look at the longer argument I posted on this it`s essentially that using more technology to look for tiny things makes everyone more focussed on tiny things. It`s the same ratcheting effect that leads to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Enough is never enough. There`s always got to be a bit more perfection.

Video referrals in RL are like giving anti-depressants to an OCD sufferer. They might be helpful used sparingly, but they don`t address the root problem. Having to go through every day obsessing over minutiae is what makes people unhappy.

Will "skeletal tracking" for forward passes turn miserable, negative RL fans into rays of sunshine?

This game will be better refereed if we instruct and allow officials to intelligently apply the benefit of the doubt across the rulebook.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

A bit of rhetoric to help make a point doesn`t amount to a strawman.

But a lot does. 5 minutes for what would amount to a few seconds is a hell of an exaggeration. If you need to exaggerate that much, you perhaps didn't have a point? Hence, strawman.

4 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If you look at the longer argument I posted on this it`s essentially that using more technology to look for tiny things makes everyone more focussed on tiny things. It`s the same ratcheting effect that leads to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Enough is never enough. There`s always got to be a bit more perfection.

Depends what you mean by tiny things. Do I think forward passes are tiny things? No, I think it's a big problem area in the game that we fail to police consistently.

And I think you need to educate yourself on what obsessive compulsive disorder is if you think things like this are what "lead to it". 

4 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Video referrals in RL are like giving anti-depressants to an OCD sufferer. They might be helpful used sparingly, but they don`t address the root problem. Having to go through every day obsessing over minutiae is what makes people unhappy.

Please educate yourself on this before using it as an example. I think looking for effective solutions to problems in the game and calling it "obsessive" and actually comparing it to people that suffer with OCD and thinking it's something that somehow "leads to it" is either incredibly ignorant or ridiculously disrespectful to be honest.

Or is it just rhetoric again?

4 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Will "skeletal tracking" for forward passes turn miserable, negative RL fans into rays of sunshine?

This game will be better refereed if we instruct and allow officials to intelligently apply the benefit of the doubt across the rulebook.

You're asking the wrong question. Will it police forward passes more effectively in a short amount of time as not to detract from the spectacle? Neither of us know yet.

I disagree with the latter. I think technology does improve the number of correct decisions made.

[unapologetic pedant]

13 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

But a lot does. 5 minutes for what would amount to a few seconds is a hell of an exaggeration. If you need to exaggerate that much, you perhaps didn't have a point? Hence, strawman.

Depends what you mean by tiny things. Do I think forward passes are tiny things? No, I think it's a big problem area in the game that we fail to police consistently.

And I think you need to educate yourself on what obsessive compulsive disorder is if you think things like this are what "lead to it". 

Please educate yourself on this before using it as an example. I think looking for effective solutions to problems in the game and calling it "obsessive" and actually comparing it to people that suffer with OCD and thinking it's something that somehow "leads to it" is either incredibly ignorant or ridiculously disrespectful to be honest.

Or is it just rhetoric again?

You're asking the wrong question. Will it police forward passes more effectively in a short amount of time as not to detract from the spectacle? Neither of us know yet.

I disagree with the latter. I think technology does improve the number of correct decisions made.

The 5 mins line really seems to concern you. I could have said "a year", "light years", "an age", "several ages". It`s mere rhetoric to make the case that more time spent assessing decisions during a game doesn`t facilitate enjoyment of the game. Especially for those at the ground. If people want to sit looking at a screen, they could stay at home and do that.

A pass which travels 1mm forward is a forward pass. Whether a tracking system could reliably detect this with no detriment to the game, as you say, we do not yet know. Add factors like "back out of the hands", "momentum", "atmospheric conditions", and it becomes more fraught with doubt.

Pertinent question for me is whether that 1mm changes anything significant. If it doesn`t, why would anyone care about it.

P.S. Please don`t jump on the 1mm figure. That too is partly rhetorical. I could stretch to 2mm.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

21 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The 5 mins line really seems to concern you. I could have said "a year", "light years", "an age", "several ages". It`s mere rhetoric to make the case that more time spent assessing decisions during a game doesn`t facilitate enjoyment of the game. Especially for those at the ground. If people want to sit looking at a screen, they could stay at home and do that.

You could have said those things, and you'd have gotten the same response. The insinuation is that it would take a considerably long time, yet there is no evidence to support that (yet). It's unjustifiable rhetoric, making it a strawman argument.

24 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

A pass which travels 1mm forward is a forward pass. Whether a tracking system could reliably detect this with no detriment to the game, as you say, we do not yet know. Add factors like "back out of the hands", "momentum", "atmospheric conditions", and it becomes more fraught with doubt.

Pertinent question for me is whether that 1mm changes anything significant. If it doesn`t, why would anyone care about it.

P.S. Please don`t jump on the 1mm figure. That too is partly rhetorical. I could stretch to 2mm.

Fraught with doubt does not mean we have an impossible situation. It's pessimistic, most likely brought about by your dislike of technology being used in the game. I think you're looking with bias, quite frankly.

1mm, 2mm, 0.5mm... forward is forward. People complain of flat passes, so I doubt a mm or 2 forward would see much complaint that it was "only a little bit forward." 

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

You could have said those things, and you'd have gotten the same response. The insinuation is that it would take a considerably long time, yet there is no evidence to support that (yet). It's unjustifiable rhetoric, making it a strawman argument.

Fraught with doubt does not mean we have an impossible situation. It's pessimistic, most likely brought about by your dislike of technology being used in the game. I think you're looking with bias, quite frankly.

1mm, 2mm, 0.5mm... forward is forward. People complain of flat passes, so I doubt a mm or 2 forward would see much complaint that it was "only a little bit forward." 

We have ample evidence that when technology is available, officials overuse it, caused by heightened fear of missing anything. To me it`s very simple. If a pass is definitely, clearly forward it should be called. If there`s any doubt, play on. No technology required.

"People complain of flat passes", flat passes are flat, not forward. Legal ,not illegal. Better to persuade people to stop complaining about legal passes.

"Forward is forward", A pass that comes back out of the hands, then through momentum drifts forward. Is that forward?

RL fans have been conditioned to see a level pass or a short pass as forward passes. Conditioned by those around them who in turn were likewise conditioned. They`re also conditioned to think it matters.

If a typical RL fan went to an RU game and carried on like a typical RL fan he would shout "Forward, Forward, Forward, Forward" throughout the game. Eventually the number of funny looks he got would condition him to stop it. He might then start to enjoy himself a bit more, have a more positive outlook on life, be happier, more relaxed.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

We have ample evidence that when technology is available, officials overuse it, caused by heightened fear of missing anything. To me it`s very simple. If a pass is definitely, clearly forward it should be called. If there`s any doubt, play on. No technology required.

How can there be able evidence of "overuse" when the term "overuse" is completely subjective? You cannot just make up supporting evidence like that! You have then come to your own conclusion as to why. I could just as easily say "there is ample evidence of underuse, as some fans complain every time they go to it, thus an increase of mistakes."

That's your opinion on the end, which is fair enough. For me, if there's doubt and we have the technology, check it. It's working fairly well to improve correct results.

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

"People complain of flat passes", flat passes are flat, not forward. Legal ,not illegal. Better to persuade people to stop complaining about legal passes.

Don't quote me out of context to prove a point that wasn't there. You're fighting strawmen again.

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

"Forward is forward", A pass that comes back out of the hands, then through momentum drifts forward. Is that forward?

I feel like I'm back at the start of the thread. I'm a former referee, I know the laws well. We've already discussed momentum, acceleration, wind, etc. These are not insurmountable challenges.

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

RL fans have been conditioned to see a level pass or a short pass as forward passes. Conditioned by those around them who in turn were likewise conditioned. They`re also conditioned to think it matters.

If a typical RL fan went to an RU game and carried on like a typical RL fan he would shout "Forward, Forward, Forward, Forward" throughout the game. Eventually the number of funny looks he got would condition him to stop it. He might then start to enjoy himself a bit more, have a more positive outlook on life, be happier, more relaxed.

Forward passes do matter, just like offsides, high tackles and being in touch. They are a breach of the laws. You have quite a condescending outlook on rugby league fans. I couldn't really care if the Union lot ignore forward passes.

Basically, what you're saying is if we ignore the rules being broken, we'll enjoy the game more? Personally, if you do not police the laws of the game well, players ignore them and the game breaks down, thus my enjoyment of the game goes down too. The laws are there for a reason, and the more effectively they are policed, the better the game is.

[unapologetic pedant]

16 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

How can there be able evidence of "overuse" when the term "overuse" is completely subjective? You cannot just make up supporting evidence like that! You have then come to your own conclusion as to why. I could just as easily say "there is ample evidence of underuse, as some fans complain every time they go to it, thus an increase of mistakes."

That's your opinion on the end, which is fair enough. For me, if there's doubt and we have the technology, check it. It's working fairly well to improve correct results.

Don't quote me out of context to prove a point that wasn't there. You're fighting strawmen again.

I feel like I'm back at the start of the thread. I'm a former referee, I know the laws well. We've already discussed momentum, acceleration, wind, etc. These are not insurmountable challenges.

Forward passes do matter, just like offsides, high tackles and being in touch. They are a breach of the laws. You have quite a condescending outlook on rugby league fans. I couldn't really care if the Union lot ignore forward passes.

Basically, what you're saying is if we ignore the rules being broken, we'll enjoy the game more? Personally, if you do not police the laws of the game well, players ignore them and the game breaks down, thus my enjoyment of the game goes down too. The laws are there for a reason, and the more effectively they are policed, the better the game is.

It really isn`t condescending to wish RL fans would stop looking for imperfections and just enjoy the game.

Other than simply asserting that it is a breach, you still haven`t specified what the terrible effect is if an official misses a slightly forward pass. If the margin is small what does it change in terms of advantage to the attacking side or the ability of the opposition to defend the play?

As someone who follows grass roots RL as much as the elite level my overriding concern about the endless pursuit of perfection is the effect on how the game is refereed and played at lower levels where they don`t have video back-up.

On NSW RL highlights montages, where the ref is mic`d up, there`s a relentless patter of "pass is good, happy with the pass?" So they make a comment on every pass. All passes are automatically illegal unless there`s good reason for all 3 officials to be "happy with the pass". This flips basic logic on its head. It assumes everything is wrong unless there`s clear evidence that it`s right, that every pass is guilty till proven innocent.

Officials are there to let the players play the game, not to stop them playing the game. The way we`re going, running the ball out of dummy-half and taking the tackle, might be all the game is. Since anything that deviates from a rigid pattern risks an official calling a forward pass, obstruction, knock-on, double knock-on, offside, etc.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

It really isn`t condescending to wish RL fans would stop looking for imperfections and just enjoy the game.

It is to think that you're way is better and their way is somehow lesser than yours (ie the "funny looks" comment). How dare fans want the correct decision made, eh? Just enjoy it and stop moaning...

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Other than simply asserting that it is a breach, you still haven`t specified what the terrible effect is if an official misses a slightly forward pass. If the margin is small what does it change in terms of advantage to the attacking side or the ability of the opposition to defend the play?

If a breach of a law occurs in a passage of play, and that passage of play results in points scored, then that is a pretty big effect on the game. That shouldn't really need spelling out.

You can't just pick and choose if it's made an effect unless there's a particular advantage to the non-offending team to play on (hence the 6 again rule). You can't just say "well it was only a little forward, not much was gained, play on, try."

If a breach of a law gains the offending team an advantage, then it's unfair.

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

As someone who follows grass roots RL as much as the elite level my overriding concern about the endless pursuit of perfection is the effect on how the game is refereed and played at lower levels where they don`t have video back-up.

Ah, the "must be officiated the same throughout the game" argument. Referees do better with better assistance. Many games I've reffed have been without touch judges. SL games have in goal judges too. Should we just stick with one man in the middle because the not so the game can have more than that? Or do we accept that elite games need elite officiating and elite assistance to go with it?

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

On NSW RL highlights montages, where the ref is mic`d up, there`s a relentless patter of "pass is good, happy with the pass?" So they make a comment on every pass. All passes are automatically illegal unless there`s good reason for all 3 officials to be "happy with the pass". This flips basic logic on its head. It assumes everything is wrong unless there`s clear evidence that it`s right, that every pass is guilty till proven innocent.

Confirming something is good isn't assuming it isn't. What a ridiculous spin to put on it. You're basically saying they didn't have a discussion on events leading up to a try and should just give it.

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Officials are there to let the players play the game, not to stop them playing the game. The way we`re going, running the ball out of dummy-half and taking the tackle, might be all the game is. Since anything that deviates from a rigid pattern risks an official calling a forward pass, obstruction, knock-on, double knock-on, offside, etc.

Officials are there to make sure the game is played correctly, not just make sure the game is played. The rest of what you're saying is hyperbole. Everything you do in the game, you risk messing up. That's the game! That's the same in any game. You can't just ignore laws so the game keeps going, otherwise what's the bloody point in having an official? It would be anarchy.

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

It is to think that you're way is better and their way is somehow lesser than yours (ie the "funny looks" comment). How dare fans want the correct decision made, eh? Just enjoy it and stop moaning...

If a breach of a law occurs in a passage of play, and that passage of play results in points scored, then that is a pretty big effect on the game. That shouldn't really need spelling out.

You can't just pick and choose if it's made an effect unless there's a particular advantage to the non-offending team to play on (hence the 6 again rule). You can't just say "well it was only a little forward, not much was gained, play on, try."

If a breach of a law gains the offending team an advantage, then it's unfair.

Ah, the "must be officiated the same throughout the game" argument. Referees do better with better assistance. Many games I've reffed have been without touch judges. SL games have in goal judges too. Should we just stick with one man in the middle because the not so the game can have more than that? Or do we accept that elite games need elite officiating and elite assistance to go with it?

Confirming something is good isn't assuming it isn't. What a ridiculous spin to put on it. You're basically saying they didn't have a discussion on events leading up to a try and should just give it.

Officials are there to make sure the game is played correctly, not just make sure the game is played. The rest of what you're saying is hyperbole. Everything you do in the game, you risk messing up. That's the game! That's the same in any game. You can't just ignore laws so the game keeps going, otherwise what's the bloody point in having an official? It would be anarchy.

The point about the NSW lower-grade refs is that they`re babbling "pass is good" all through the game, not just on try-scoring plays. Another refrain they`ve slipped into is "keep going". Why do players need to be told to carry on playing unless obsessive, compulsive officiating has got them perpetually expecting to hear a whistle?

Consider this scenario. Dummy-half on his own 20m line passes to prop, pass goes 1.5mm forward, prop brilliantly offloads in tackle to support player who beats 2 defenders, then passes to another support player who beats 3 more defenders, before passing to winger who races a further 40m to touch down in the corner.

I assume the most important part of the above for you is the 1.5mm on the first pass, because "forward is forward" and forward passes are "a big problem area in the game".

If you are a referee you must be aware that crowd calls for forward passes are often accompanied with potty-mouthed abuse of officials. This type of atmosphere is not best-suited to attracting new fans to the game. There may be people out there for whom bellowing "Forward" all afternoon or evening is not their idea of a good time. They might be a bit dainty for your tastes, but they`ll still pay to get in, so maybe we could overlook their desire to relax and be happy.

 

 

 

[fighting irish]

Steady on chaps! 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

43 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Another refrain they`ve slipped into is "keep going". Why do players need to be told to carry on playing unless obsessive, compulsive officiating has got them perpetually expecting to hear a whistle?

Because players aren't sure if the tackle is complete? Or if an infringement had taken place? It's not obsessive compulsive, it's good commonsense officiating that keeps the flow of the game going. Isn't that what people want?!

45 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Consider this scenario. Dummy-half on his own 20m line passes to prop, pass goes 1.5mm forward, prop brilliantly offloads in tackle to support player who beats 2 defenders, then passes to another support player who beats 3 more defenders, before passing to winger who races a further 40m to touch down in the corner.

I assume the most important part of the above for you is the 1.5mm on the first pass, because "forward is forward" and forward passes are "a big problem area in the game".

Consider this scenario. Dummy half on  opposition 20m line passes to prop, prop cops a high tackle and drops the ball, tackler picks up and brilliantly offloads to support player who beats 2 defenders, then passes to another support player who beats 3 more defenders, before passing to winger who races a further 40m to touch down in the corner.

How is that any different? Do we ignore the high tackle because the play after was good?

What about this scenario: 

Dummy-half on his own 20m line passes to prop, prop juggles it a bit and drops it but picks it up just after it grazes the floor, prop brilliantly offloads in tackle to support player who beats 2 defenders, then passes to another support player who beats 3 more defenders, before passing to winger who races a further 40m to touch down in the corner.

How is that any different? Do we ignore the knock on because the play after was good?

Answer to both: No , because it was an infringement and the play after shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

So yeah, damn right the forward pass matters. I can't believe it's even being discussed as being ok!

56 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If you are a referee you must be aware that crowd calls for forward passes are often accompanied with potty-mouthed abuse of officials. This type of atmosphere is not best-suited to attracting new fans to the game. There may be people out there for whom bellowing "Forward" all afternoon or evening is not their idea of a good time. They might be a bit dainty for your tastes, but they`ll still pay to get in, so maybe we could overlook their desire to relax and be happy.

I see we've returned to the condescending route.

I'm not sure what the fans shouting "forward" has to do with this, seeing as I assume there will be forward passes in the game regardless of whether they are officiated better or ignored?

Maybe if we just ignore all the rules, the fans will have nothing to shout at is your reasoning? I don't know. It's baffling that you think it's ok to ignore the laws just because they broke them a little bit. Truly baffling.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Because players aren't sure if the tackle is complete? Or if an infringement had taken place? It's not obsessive compulsive, it's good commonsense officiating that keeps the flow of the game going. Isn't that what people want?!

Consider this scenario. Dummy half on  opposition 20m line passes to prop, prop cops a high tackle and drops the ball, tackler picks up and brilliantly offloads to support player who beats 2 defenders, then passes to another support player who beats 3 more defenders, before passing to winger who races a further 40m to touch down in the corner.

How is that any different? Do we ignore the high tackle because the play after was good?

What about this scenario: 

Dummy-half on his own 20m line passes to prop, prop juggles it a bit and drops it but picks it up just after it grazes the floor, prop brilliantly offloads in tackle to support player who beats 2 defenders, then passes to another support player who beats 3 more defenders, before passing to winger who races a further 40m to touch down in the corner.

How is that any different? Do we ignore the knock on because the play after was good?

Answer to both: No , because it was an infringement and the play after shouldn't have been allowed to happen.

So yeah, damn right the forward pass matters. I can't believe it's even being discussed as being ok!

I see we've returned to the condescending route.

I'm not sure what the fans shouting "forward" has to do with this, seeing as I assume there will be forward passes in the game regardless of whether they are officiated better or ignored?

Maybe if we just ignore all the rules, the fans will have nothing to shout at is your reasoning? I don't know. It's baffling that you think it's ok to ignore the laws just because they broke them a little bit. Truly baffling.

If you check out the NSW highlights packages you will hear that the "pass is good, happy mate?, keep going" patter has nothing to do with tackles being complete. It`s the officials making a comment on every single pass to each other and to the players. It`s completely unnecessary. More rational is for the ref to shut up, regard every pass as good, be happy with every pass, unless there`s clear evidence that the pass was not good. The players will then naturally keep going without being told to.

In your two scenarios, as with passing, if there is clear evidence of a breach of the rules then it should be called. If there`s doubt it shouldn`t.

Saying that breaches of the rules should only be called when there is clear evidence that they`ve happened is not tantamount to saying the rules should be ignored. You might care to read the "Strawman" definition you posted and have a look in the mirror. Perhaps look up "irony" while you`re at it.

The logic I favour is the same that is used in the law courts. Everyone is innocent till proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A pass has the same rights. Better that guilty men walk free than innocent men are convicted. Better that slightly forward passes are not penalised than legal passes are penalised.

 

 

 

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

7 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If you check out the NSW highlights packages you will hear that the "pass is good, happy mate?, keep going" patter has nothing to do with tackles being complete. It`s the officials making a comment on every single pass to each other and to the players. It`s completely unnecessary. More rational is for the ref to shut up, regard every pass as good, be happy with every pass, unless there`s clear evidence that the pass was not good. The players will then naturally keep going without being told to.

When there are a lot of incidents in a game, players are naturally going to be unsure at times when play should continue. I don't really see the issue in what you're saying at all. Whether he's quiet or loud, this will still happen.

7 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In your two scenarios, as with passing, if there is clear evidence of a breach of the rules then it should be called. If there`s doubt it shouldn`t.

Saying that breaches of the rules should only be called when there is clear evidence that they`ve happened is not tantamount to saying the rules should be ignored. You might care to read the "Strawman" definition you posted and have a look in the mirror. Perhaps look up "irony" while you`re at it.

So we should ignore situations where it is perceived as unclear? Not check them when available to us? I don't agree. That's like saying "we're not sure who broke in to this house, so we'll just leave it rather than investigate it." You call things when they're clearly a breach, you ignore things when there clearly isn't, and when you're unclear you check it out.

Saying things should be called when they're clear isn't ignoring the laws, you're right. Saying things should be ignored when you're not sure but have the tools to check is. You might want to comprehend the argument before retorting with "strawman". It's only a strawman if you've misunderstood the point in this instance.

Continue with the condescending route however if it makes you feel better.

7 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The logic I favour is the same that is used in the law courts. Everyone is innocent till proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A pass has the same rights. Better that guilty men walk free than innocent men are convicted. Better that slightly forward passes are not penalised than legal passes are penalised.

Now THAT is a strawman. No idea how you've deduced that anything I've said is tantamount to calling legal passes as illegal. Perhaps you can point that one out? I'm not sure how in any scenario discussed a regular pass would be called as forward after being checked?

In a court of law, they look at evidence at their disposal. They don't ignore it to get a quicker result. Checking something does not equate to guilt. It's an unusual path you're going down here.

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

When there are a lot of incidents in a game, players are naturally going to be unsure at times when play should continue. I don't really see the issue in what you're saying at all. Whether he's quiet or loud, this will still happen.

So we should ignore situations where it is perceived as unclear? Not check them when available to us? I don't agree. That's like saying "we're not sure who broke in to this house, so we'll just leave it rather than investigate it." You call things when they're clearly a breach, you ignore things when there clearly isn't, and when you're unclear you check it out.

Saying things should be called when they're clear isn't ignoring the laws, you're right. Saying things should be ignored when you're not sure but have the tools to check is. You might want to comprehend the argument before retorting with "strawman". It's only a strawman if you've misunderstood the point in this instance.

Continue with the condescending route however if it makes you feel better.

Now THAT is a strawman. No idea how you've deduced that anything I've said is tantamount to calling legal passes as illegal. Perhaps you can point that one out? I'm not sure how in any scenario discussed a regular pass would be called as forward after being checked?

In a court of law, they look at evidence at their disposal. They don't ignore it to get a quicker result. Checking something does not equate to guilt. It's an unusual path you're going down here.

I have the feeling that you`re not familiar with the mic`d up lower-grade ref talk that I`m citing. If so, you`re criticizing my criticism of something you haven`t heard.

A lot of this relates to the thread you started "What makes a good referee?" When a ref talks to players around the tackle and ruck, there`s a value in it. It`s good refereeing. It lets the players know what`s required and forestalls penalties and stoppages. But making a "pass is good" comment on every pass serves no useful purpose. It indicates a mindset that`s looking for problems.

If you are walking down the street, would you welcome someone following you every step of the way, chivvying you along with "step is good, step is good, I`m happy with the step, keep going, keep going"? The only effect would be to make you nervous and worried something was wrong. You`d far rather be left to carry on doing what you would be doing anyway.

How will we ever "have the tools to check" every pass reliably. There`s always going to be some doubt. There have to be clear guidelines for officials setting out to whom the benefit of that doubt should be given. This is more important to good refereeing than technology. Especially for the vast majority of RL games where video referrals are not, and never will be, available.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I have the feeling that you`re not familiar with the mic`d up lower-grade ref talk that I`m citing. If so, you`re criticizing my criticism of something you haven`t heard.

A lot of this relates to the thread you started "What makes a good referee?" When a ref talks to players around the tackle and ruck, there`s a value in it. It`s good refereeing. It lets the players know what`s required and forestalls penalties and stoppages. But making a "pass is good" comment on every pass serves no useful purpose. It indicates a mindset that`s looking for problems.

Well if it's specific to NSWRL, it's not exactly a game wide "problem". If they deem it's too much, I'm sure they'll discuss it and rein it in.

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If you are walking down the street, would you welcome someone following you every step of the way, chivvying you along with "step is good, step is good, I`m happy with the step, keep going, keep going"? The only effect would be to make you nervous and worried something was wrong. You`d far rather be left to carry on doing what you would be doing anyway.

Not really a like for like situation, is it? We aren't getting officiated on the streets.

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

How will we ever "have the tools to check" every pass reliably. There`s always going to be some doubt. There have to be clear guidelines for officials setting out to whom the benefit of that doubt should be given. This is more important to good refereeing than technology. Especially for the vast majority of RL games where video referrals are not, and never will be, available.

Yes, there will always be doubt. I've never argued otherwise. It's not about eliminating all doubt, it's about reducing it as much as possible. There are already many guidelines in place for giving benefit of the doubt. The idea is to reduce doubt, hence why we have assistants to referees like touch judges, like in goal judges, like video referees. The man in the middle is the most important, but the more help he has the better he will do.

[fighting irish]

Oh god, I'm fed up of this now.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Oh god, I'm fed up of this now.

We can`t worry about your state of mind. Anyhow, you will be relieved to know that I was intending to draw a line at this point.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Same.

Let's agree to disagree

[Dunbar]

12 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Anyhow, you will be relieved to know that I was intending to draw a line at this point.

 

3 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Same.

Let's agree to disagree

Come on guys, this is the Internet, it's not supposed to be this sensible... we need to keep going until one party describes the other as a Nazi.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

 

Come on guys, this is the Internet, it's not supposed to be this sensible... we need to keep going until one party describes the other as a Nazi.

People that pass forwards and get away with it are Nazis.

Or Trump supporters.