Sun 2 Aug: SL: Huddersfield Giants v Leeds Rhinos KO 6.30pm (Sky Sports)

[Niels]

1 minute ago, daz39 said:

So what, it's his decision as he is the referee, whether he chooses to give a try, not give a try or send it to the video ref is not based on what tv cameras show, it's what he, the referee saw or thinks he saw, that's the whole reason we have them!.

Would you suggest we got rid of them and just ref games based on tv replays after the events?

How do you think tries were awarded pre super league when there were no cameras there to show anyone?

Refereees have to make decisions based on what they SAW not what they think someone watching at home saw.

Not every try awarded will be the correct decision and indeed even with cameras is still often wrong!

The ball wasn't grounded so he couldn't have seen it. 

Whatever his reasons for awarding the try, there is no evidence whatsoever the ball was grounded.

Therefore he has made a bad error, compounded by his inability to judge when to use the scteen or not. 

Actually, I think the championship, where I watch rugby,  may have referees making their own decisions. Unless I have missed the screens at Parkside or Mount Pleasant. I will check next time I go

 

[daz39]

9 minutes ago, Niels said:

The ball wasn't grounded so he couldn't have seen it. 

Whatever his reasons for awarding the try, there is no evidence whatsoever the ball was grounded.

Therefore he has made a bad error, compounded by his inability to judge when to use the scteen or not. 

Actually, I think the championship, where I watch rugby,  may have referees making their own decisions. Unless I have missed the screens at Parkside or Mount Pleasant. I will check next time I go

 

According to you and your view from the tv, his view from 5 yards away right next to the incident may have been better, that could have been his evidence for awarding the try - you and i will never know that as we didn't have the same view point as he did !

[George Watt]

8 hours ago, DavidM said:

Every time that horn goes I’m thinking of laurel and hardy now 

Was a huge Laurel and Hardy fan  and takes me back to the early 1960's when I was in digs in Lancaster and watched " Saps at Sea" on my landlady's TV. My landlady remained completely passive throughout the film whereas I could hardly control my laughter.

[DimmestStar]

For me the TV replays did not once show things from the angle that the referee had. Clearly the ball was not grounded in the first instance but when the player rolled over the referee awarded a try. I was waiting for a TV replay from directly behind to confirm or otherwise but we never got it.

The referee awarded a try without recall to the video ref so we have to presume he had a clear view. Something which the TV replays did not.

[gingerjon]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

I must admit, it looked like it was held up, but there was one angle with the ball obscured, I'm cool working on the assumption that the ref who was right there could see the ball touch the ground at that point. 

Don't come here being all reasonable.

[DavidM]

I’ve said before I want officials to make decisions and back what they see . He made one , he must have been confident in doing it , I won’t bag him for that . If we didn’t have the VR we wouldn’t have the argument 

[Chrispmartha]

9 hours ago, Niels said:

I didn't see the ball grounded. 

Reading the thread none of us did, even yourself which is admirable. 

Therefore I don't see how he could have seen it with sufficient certainty to not refer to the video ref. 

Another poster suggested he got caught up in the momentum which I think is accurate. 

 

 

He was on the pitch closest to the action, we nor the camera angles were.

Im not sure what the issue is here if he had sent it up yo the video ref, it would have been given anyway as there was no sufficient evidence not to give it.

[Chrispmartha]

8 hours ago, Niels said:

He was badly positioned and obstructed from that side.

I think he probably thought it was grounded when in fact our cameras showed it was on the player's arm. 

 

 

 

Now who’s making assumptions?

[LeeF]

10 hours ago, Niels said:

We don't know if he saw the ball grounded or not.

We didn't, we saw it on top of a player's chest then another's arm. 

The problem is that he referred to the video ref on less contentious calls, yet on this one where he couldn't possibly be 100% sure he didn't. 

 

 

 

You are missing the clear point in that he must have seen the grounding otherwise it would have been sent upstairs for a check.
Just because the TV didn’t or more likely couldn’t show a grounding doesn’t mean the ref was incorrect in awarding after all he would have been closer and at a better angle to view the incident 

[LeeF]

7 hours ago, Niels said:

The ball wasn't grounded so he couldn't have seen it. 

Whatever his reasons for awarding the try, there is no evidence whatsoever the ball was grounded.

Therefore he has made a bad error, compounded by his inability to judge when to use the scteen or not. 

Actually, I think the championship, where I watch rugby,  may have referees making their own decisions. Unless I have missed the screens at Parkside or Mount Pleasant. I will check next time I go

 

Yes it was. Just because you didn’t see it from your poor viewing position doesn’t mean that it wasn’t grounded

[JohnM]

I feel like I've stumbled over the role-playing session in the referees training course. Which one of you is the ref in training?

[Tommygilf]

I'm going to have to watch that game back to believe it actually happened

[meast]

9 hours ago, Carlisle1921 said:

As a neutral who enjoyed an excellent game of rugby league my biggest complaint with mr hicks was why after the hooter went and huddersfield were on the attack gaskell got clotheslined on the last tackle of the game it was just given as full time. Surely that should have been a penalty, which looking at Sezer's kicking he wouldn't have kicked anyway but he should have been given the opportunity 

 

There was also one in our first set of extra time where Lawrence was wrestled to the ground with Leeds arms around his neck, any other time of the game and it's a penalty under the sticks, but everyone benefits at some point from things, it's sport unfortunately.

[meast]

9 hours ago, Niels said:

He was badly positioned and obstructed from that side.

I think he probably thought it was grounded when in fact our cameras showed it was on the player's arm. 

 

 

 

How do you know what the referee did or didn't see though?

He doesn't watch the game on TV like the rest of us

[meast]

19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm going to have to watch that game back to believe it actually happened

Fast forward to about 61 minutes nothing much happened before that 

[OMEGA]

I’m OKish with Golden Point but I don’t believe drop goals should count!

What happens in GP isn’t really Rugby League as both teams no longer try to move the ball through the hands in an attempt to score a try. It becomes a drop goal fest with some games degenerating into farce as both teams snatch at a drop goal from silly situations. We’ve seen games where there’s been 8 or 10 attempts.

Weve also seen games, important ones like the £1M game where the team kicking off in GP never had a chance to win the game because they never had possession. Despite defending well the receiving team has dropped a 45m goal and won the game.

IMO GP should be settled by a try or a penalty, that would look much more like the game of Rugby League and we’d see less farcical ends to matches.

[DavidM]

35 minutes ago, meast said:

There was also one in our first set of extra time where Lawrence was wrestled to the ground with Leeds arms around his neck, any other time of the game and it's a penalty under the sticks, but everyone benefits at some point from things, it's sport unfortunately.

I mentioned this as we were watching the game . He’d penalised exactly that in the game . This is part of the reason I dislike extra time . It becomes a different game , officiated differently and played differently , with the often sole objective of kicking a drop goal ... and when you do that it’s finito and the other side has no comeback.  And then after ten minutes if nowt happens it’s still a draw ... go figure 

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I mentioned this as we were watching the game . He’d penalised exactly that in the game . This is part of the reason I dislike extra time . It becomes a different game , officiated differently and played differently , with the often sole objective of kicking a drop goal ... and when you do that it’s finito and the other side has no comeback.  And then after ten minutes if nowt happens it’s still a draw ... go figure 

There was also a head high against a Leeds player in ET which would have been a penalty in normal time.

 

I haven't got that much of an issue with Golden Point, it's not as though its that regular occurrence, and would the game have been talked about as much if it had finished a draw?

[whatmichaelsays]

34 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

I’m OKish with Golden Point but I don’t believe drop goals should count!

What happens in GP isn’t really Rugby League as both teams no longer try to move the ball through the hands in an attempt to score a try. It becomes a drop goal fest with some games degenerating into farce as both teams snatch at a drop goal from silly situations. We’ve seen games where there’s been 8 or 10 attempts.

Weve also seen games, important ones like the £1M game where the team kicking off in GP never had a chance to win the game because they never had possession. Despite defending well the receiving team has dropped a 45m goal and won the game.

IMO GP should be settled by a try or a penalty, that would look much more like the game of Rugby League and we’d see less farcical ends to matches.

Might be worth learning something from the NFL here, because they had a similar situation where teams would just play for a field goal in OT. 

IIRC, a touchdown (and maybe a safety?) will automatically win the game but if a team scores a field goal in the opening possession of OT, the opposition then has an opportunity to possess the ball and either kick a FG to level the game, or score a touchdown to win it. If both teams possess the ball without scoring, then any scoring play wins. The point being that simply 'driving to the 40-45 yard line to kick the winner shouldn't be enough. 

Maybe the approach should be that the first half should require a try or penalty, with DGs only winning the game in the second half?

 

 

[Chrispmartha]

10 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Might be worth learning something from the NFL here, because they had a similar situation where teams would just play for a field goal in OT. 

IIRC, a touchdown (and maybe a safety?) will automatically win the game but if a team scores a field goal in the opening possession of OT, the opposition then has an opportunity to possess the ball and either kick a FG to level the game, or score a touchdown to win it. If both teams possess the ball without scoring, then any scoring play wins. The point being that simply 'driving to the 40-45 yard line to kick the winner shouldn't be enough. 

Maybe the approach should be that the first half should require a try or penalty, with DGs only winning the game in the second half?

 

 

I think if we think a drop goal shouldn't win the game the simplest way is just to make it so you can only win by a penalty goal or a try, what you've suggested sounds a bit convoluted to me.

[whatmichaelsays]

21 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think if we think a drop goal shouldn't win the game the simplest way is just to make it so you can only win by a penalty goal or a try, what you've suggested sounds a bit convoluted to me.

At the end of the day, a drop goal is a valid scoring play and the aim of Golden Point is to get a winner. 

The NFL system is easier than it sounds, but is very much tailored for the way American Football works, but I don't think you have to make it too difficult, even for the average RL fan. Something like "drop goals count, but aren't 'golden'" might be easy enough. - EG: if you score a drop goal, play continues until the end of ET or until a higher-scoring play occurs. Similar to the 'silver goal' thing that they tried in football.

[Padge]

2 hours ago, DavidM said:

I’ve said before I want officials to make decisions and back what they see . He made one , he must have been confident in doing it , I won’t bag him for that . If we didn’t have the VR we wouldn’t have the argument 

Oh yes we would. Believe me there would still be an argument.

[Chrispmartha]

14 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

At the end of the day, a drop goal is a valid scoring play and the aim of Golden Point is to get a winner. 

The NFL system is easier than it sounds, but is very much tailored for the way American Football works, but I don't think you have to make it too difficult, even for the average RL fan. Something like "drop goals count, but aren't 'golden'" might be easy enough. - EG: if you score a drop goal, play continues until the end of ET or until a higher-scoring play occurs. Similar to the 'silver goal' thing that they tried in football.

I just don't think GP is common enough to warrant it being an issue, how many GP games were there last season for example?

 

I suppose the biggest is  in games of big importance, is a drop goal in ET a fair enough way to relegate a team or get them to or indeed win a grand final?

I remember probably the best game Ive ever seen live was the 2003 CC semi final between Leeds and Saints, if I recall Leeds did drop a goal in ET but it wasn't Golden Point then and in fairness it did seem to work well, but I think the ET length was different back then wasn't it ten minutes each way rather than 5?

[DavidM]

15 minutes ago, Padge said:

Oh yes we would. Believe me there would still be an argument.

But that’s sport . There’d  be no argument about why he didn’t go to the video , as it wouldn’t be an option .

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

How do you know he didn’t see the ball grounded?, the biggest tell for me is how the players react and the hudds players hardly reacted.

 

 

Did you miss the full backs reaction?