Video referee...again...

[Wholly Trinity]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

I checked the BBC website, it was a try. A try/no try is what the ref/video ref awards not what a supporter/fan/observer believes.

 

 

I don't think anyone's disputing that a try was awarded and the records will show that in perpetuity... but, it was a mistake according to the laws of the game as the Lino was not in play when he caught the ball and ran to the line. Most are wondering why it was allowed to stand when there was a video ref who could clearly have ruled it out but was not allowed to intervene. In the end, it made no difference to the result, so it's purely academic.

It's also nice for traditional RL fans to have an axe to grind and a grudge to bear. After all, we Trin fans have not forgotten getting knocked out of the cup by a 'try' that was awarded by Robin Whitfield to Neil Summers of Bradford Northern which was grounded 2m before the try line or the match-winning try awarded to Warrington by Thierry Alibert on the 7th tackle 

https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/competitions/challenge-cup-1992/game-2/wakefield-trinity-vs-bradford-northern/summary.html

https://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php?/topic/347970-worst-referreing-decision-to-benefit-your-team/page/2/

How would you feel if your team conceded a try if a sub waiting to come on ran and caught a kick and scored a try?

[Old Frightful]

6 hours ago, Padge said:

I checked the BBC website, it was a try. A try/no try is what the ref/video ref awards not what a supporter/fan/observer believes.

A pointless post by you, not sure if you're trying to wind me up again or not but hey ho.

This thread is exactly the sort of thread that this RL forum is here for. If you read my initial post again I'm asking for clarification on what the VR can and can't adjudicate on and also wondering what the referee during the game asked him to check on that particular try. I'm not claiming it was a dreadful injustice, I even pointed out that mistakes are made, which is usually your bottom line in any refereeing controversy that appears on here.

Nearly all contributors to the thread understood where I was coming from and have added to it, some going into great depth which I appreciate as it helps trying to understand the reasoning a bit more.

Wholly Trinity sums it up very well below :

5 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

I don't think anyone's disputing that a try was awarded and the records will show that in perpetuity... but, it was a mistake according to the laws of the game as the Lino was not in play when he caught the ball and ran to the line. Most are wondering why it was allowed to stand when there was a video ref who could clearly have ruled it out but was not allowed to intervene. In the end, it made no difference to the result, so it's purely academic.

 

[Barry Badrinath]

7 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

I don't think anyone's disputing that a try was awarded and the records will show that in perpetuity... but, it was a mistake according to the laws of the game as the Lino was not in play when he caught the ball and ran to the line. Most are wondering why it was allowed to stand when there was a video ref who could clearly have ruled it out but was not allowed to intervene. In the end, it made no difference to the result, so it's purely academic.

It's also nice for traditional RL fans to have an axe to grind and a grudge to bear. After all, we Trin fans have not forgotten getting knocked out of the cup by a 'try' that was awarded by Robin Whitfield to Neil Summers of Bradford Northern which was grounded 2m before the try line or the match-winning try awarded to Warrington by Thierry Alibert on the 7th tackle 

https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/competitions/challenge-cup-1992/game-2/wakefield-trinity-vs-bradford-northern/summary.html

https://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php?/topic/347970-worst-referreing-decision-to-benefit-your-team/page/2/

How would you feel if your team conceded a try if a sub waiting to come on ran and caught a kick and scored a try?

Wakey fans on twitter are, ive been told to 'learn the rules' so much this past weekend from Wakefield fans

[David Dockhouse Host]

Top guy Ian Smith

For me there are 2 questions.

1. Should the VR check for these incidents.

2. Was it offisde by the rules? Not whether it appears offisde (like a lock on by a defender in a tackle)

https://youtu.be/y8ehMZZVBNg

 

 

 

 

[Padge]

20 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

I don't think anyone's disputing that a try was awarded and the records will show that in perpetuity... but, it was a mistake according to the laws of the game as the Lino was not in play when he caught the ball and ran to the line. Most are wondering why it was allowed to stand when there was a video ref who could clearly have ruled it out but was not allowed to intervene. In the end, it made no difference to the result, so it's purely academic.

It's also nice for traditional RL fans to have an axe to grind and a grudge to bear. After all, we Trin fans have not forgotten getting knocked out of the cup by a 'try' that was awarded by Robin Whitfield to Neil Summers of Bradford Northern which was grounded 2m before the try line or the match-winning try awarded to Warrington by Thierry Alibert on the 7th tackle 

https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/competitions/challenge-cup-1992/game-2/wakefield-trinity-vs-bradford-northern/summary.html

https://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php?/topic/347970-worst-referreing-decision-to-benefit-your-team/page/2/

How would you feel if your team conceded a try if a sub waiting to come on ran and caught a kick and scored a try?

 

14 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

A pointless post by you, not sure if you're trying to wind me up again or not but hey ho.

This thread is exactly the sort of thread that this RL forum is here for. If you read my initial post again I'm asking for clarification on what the VR can and can't adjudicate on and also wondering what the referee during the game asked him to check on that particular try. I'm not claiming it was a dreadful injustice, I even pointed out that mistakes are made, which is usually your bottom line in any refereeing controversy that appears on here.

Nearly all contributors to the thread understood where I was coming from and have added to it, some going into great depth which I appreciate as it helps trying to understand the reasoning a bit more.

Wholly Trinity sums it up very well below :

 

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The problem is that we have published laws of the game with footnotes that only define the bare bones of how the game is played and controlled. These then have unpublished, other than press releases, interpratations of how the law should be applied. To compound we have added a video ref who applies unpublished protocols that as with the interpratations are tweaked constantly. 

So the real problem isn't could the VR make a decision but why is it not simple to find out if he could. Why aren't the interpratations and protocols published on the RFL website alongside the laws of the game. The fact that it isn't just results in guesses and circular arguments. 

At the beginning of each season there is usually a press release announcing changes but they are never detailed and these are what supporters rely on to try and second guess what was meant by a 'rule'. 

Example. when is a tackle count reset applied it doesn't exist in the laws, so how is it applied and why was never published other than a press release saying it wa being introduced to reduce penalties at the PTB. 

If the VR could not review the incident, because protocols say he couldn't then there must be a 'list' of what he cannot check. Just fully publish what officials are working to. 

 

[Oxford]

22 hours ago, TBone said:

But it might be just a bad dream

More a decription of the thread.

[Wholly Trinity]

13 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:

Wakey fans on twitter are, ive been told to 'learn the rules' so much this past weekend from Wakefield fans

Tbf, I meant specifically on this thread. Twitter and Facebook ramblings are something else. I try to avoid them.

[Wholly Trinity]

48 minutes ago, Padge said:

 

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The problem is that we have published laws of the game with footnotes that only define the bare bones of how the game is played and controlled. These then have unpublished, other than press releases, interpratations of how the law should be applied. To compound we have added a video ref who applies unpublished protocols that as with the interpratations are tweaked constantly. 

So the real problem isn't could the VR make a decision but why is it not simple to find out if he could. Why aren't the interpratations and protocols published on the RFL website alongside the laws of the game. The fact that it isn't just results in guesses and circular arguments. 

At the beginning of each season there is usually a press release announcing changes but they are never detailed and these are what supporters rely on to try and second guess what was meant by a 'rule'. 

Example. when is a tackle count reset applied it doesn't exist in the laws, so how is it applied and why was never published other than a press release saying it wa being introduced to reduce penalties at the PTB. 

If the VR could not review the incident, because protocols say he couldn't then there must be a 'list' of what he cannot check. Just fully publish what officials are working to. 

 

A very good point and as you say, these guidelines must exist and must be written down somewhere.

I think the clubs are informed via the rules committee? I've heard Chris Chester talk about him being a representative on that. Even then, it seems his role is fairly passive in that he is informed of current interpretations and thinking. 

There seems to be an issue of transparency and accountability here, particularly in a professional sport where decisions cost money. 

I guess while ever we're willing to accept it we'll get mushroom management. 

[Angelic Cynic]

After all these years,there still seems to be dissatisfaction with the Video Referee.

Sometimes the incorrect decisions do benefit Hull FC

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/video-referees-essential-waste-time-10288/

If the video referee was scrapped - the sport would save money! The contentious decisions will stimulate debate.The decisions will stand.The sport will continue.

It will never be a level playing field.It will never be perfect.The sport should try getting some money...and/or saving money. 

[Wholly Trinity]

29 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

After all these years,there still seems to be dissatisfaction with the Video Referee.

Sometimes the incorrect decisions do benefit Hull FC

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/video-referees-essential-waste-time-10288/

If the video referee was scrapped - the sport would save money! The contentious decisions will stimulate debate.The decisions will stand.The sport will continue.

It will never be a level playing field.It will never be perfect.The sport should try getting some money...and/or saving money. 

I was thinking about this the other day and came to the conclusion that the game would be better without video refs.

However, our financier and piper-payer sky like the idea that the tv coverage is an important and integral part of the adjudication process and would not accept its removal.