Sun 1 Aug: SL: Leeds Rhinos v Warrington Wolves KO 19:30 (TV)

[rhinos78]

3 hours ago, johnh1 said:

Yes you are right. But the VR had to prove that the ref was wrong. If he could have given his opinion on what he could see and then let the on field ref make his decision, there is a much better chance of the correct decision being reached.

Yeah like i said, i dont like it going to the VR as a try or no try, but even with that rule in place, there was clear evidence the ball wasnt grounded and clear evidence that the on field call should be overturned...While the process of sending it to the VR as a try or no try is stupid in most peoples opinion...We'r only talking about the process today because of Hicks incompetence. It was as clear cut as your ever going to get.

[DavidM]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Maybe they should let the viewer hear the VR thought process like the BBC do with the challenge cup, at least then we’d have some idea how they came to the decision however wrong that decision was.

Said this repeatedly , it’s weird they don’t and they’re a total outlier on this . So we get Baz n Tez filling in with expert analysis like stevo used to … yes it’s no try , or is it , no , but is that the ball , yes , there it is , it’s a try 

[redjonn]

18 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

That VR decision was an absolute shocker, that didn’t cost leeds the game though, Gales game management did, we had two clear opportunities to take a DG and he didn’t manage them at all.

 

Briscoes brain fart didn’t help either

maybe, i was for taking DG but they never set up properly for the DG... even though Gale had the ball and hence chance it hadn't been set-up as in in a good position with space to take it... Yes a failure to call for setting up for a DG..

Given in my opinion he wasn't in a good position the risk is he misses the DG and then Warrington have seven tackles... I can therefore understand deciding it was less risky and given Leeds were limiting Warrington yardage.

He didn't cater for the dumb-axxx play that ended with a forward pass.

Leeds to me at times seem to make lots of dumb plays (e.g. risky off loads in their own half - Smith being a prime culprit), I wonder sometimes if they lose concentration and focus at times.

They, as in some players, never seem to learn from a particular unforced error.

When Leeds are leading I'm always expecting an error of some sort to give the opposition the opportunity to score.  Whereas in the past/prime you could expect a Leeds team not too. They have a few players that when they receive the ball you half expect an error...

[Saint Toppy]

14 minutes ago, redjonn said:

 

When Leeds are leading I'm always expecting an error of some sort to give the opposition the opportunity to score.  Whereas in the past/prime you could expect a Leeds team not too. They have a few players that when they receive the ball you half expect an error...

Despite what SKS keeps saying on here, this is exactly why leeds aren't genuine title contenders.

In the past they had some real game managers in their team in Peacock, JJB, Sinfield, Mcguire etc. who knew how to close games out, when to play conservative and when to push things. I don't see anyone in this team with that skill set, or even that mind-set. They need 2-3 big game players, and big game winners to turn them from a half decent team capable of winning a few games into genuine title challengers.  

[redjonn]

11 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Despite what SKS keeps saying on here, this is exactly why leeds aren't genuine title contenders.

In the past they had some real game managers in their team in Peacock, JJB, Sinfield, Mcguire etc. who knew how to close games out, when to play conservative and when to push things. I don't see anyone in this team with that skill set, or even that mind-set. They need 2-3 big game players, and big game winners to turn them from a half decent team capable of winning a few games into genuine title challengers.  

agreed, too many within the current squad lack those smarts... leading to poor game management.

I'm sure Leeds fan could easy list those players they expect handling error to come from, or poor off loads.

yep unforced errors occur but some are more likely to occur... take steaming out on an early tackle counts against a well set line with an aim to smash forcefully to the defensive set... the crowd seeing it and reacting as his run speeds to what some would say exciting barnstorming play... only to lose the ball... yep,  why be surprised that such a huge impact isn't going to make it more likely for the ball to dislodge - especially with a well aimed tackle.

Effective is what I want not show barnstorming - but I'm more a pragmatic 

[Chrispmartha]

21 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Despite what SKS keeps saying on here, this is exactly why leeds aren't genuine title contenders.

In the past they had some real game managers in their team in Peacock, JJB, Sinfield, Mcguire etc. who knew how to close games out, when to play conservative and when to push things. I don't see anyone in this team with that skill set, or even that mind-set. They need 2-3 big game players, and big game winners to turn them from a half decent team capable of winning a few games into genuine title challengers.  

I don’t think many Leeds fans would disagree with you (SKS is just on a wind up most of the time) adding Sezer and potentially Austin will help in that regard and when the youngsters have had more experience we’ll be something like

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, DavidM said:

Said this repeatedly , it’s weird they don’t and they’re a total outlier on this . So we get Baz n Tez filling in with expert analysis like stevo used to … yes it’s no try , or is it , no , but is that the ball , yes , there it is , it’s a try 

I think hearing the Vid ref would be/is a good idea though I'm not sure it would prevent the debate on here or elsewhwere.

When all we had  was our eyesight, memory and bias to go on it was just as bad but there were no forums or letters pages etc etc.

If you look at the many many wrong ( not poor or mistaken) decisions over a season I find it very odd this one has earned so much coverage and so many pages.

And there was me thinking RL fans would just be happy to have their game back.

 

 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I think hearing the Vid ref would be/is a good idea though I'm not sure it would prevent the debate on here or elsewhwere.

When all we had  was our eyesight, memory and bias to go on it was just as bad but there were no forums or letters pages etc etc.

If you look at the many many wrong ( not poor or mistaken) decisions over a season I find it very odd this one has earned so much coverage and so many pages.

And there was me thinking RL fans would just be happy to have their game back.

 

 

I think it’s because it was s VR decision that was plainly incorrect, which luckily is quite rare.

 

Im over the moon to be able to go and watch the rugby, but still think its a talking point, the teo aren’t mutually exclusive 

[Oxford]

35 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think it’s because it was s VR decision that was plainly incorrect, which luckily is quite rare.

 

Im over the moon to be able to go and watch the rugby, but still think its a talking point, the teo aren’t mutually exclusive 

It was not plainly incorrect as the rules stand. I think some would dispute water is wet if a ref or video ref called against their team.

The point I was making was that the excitement and even joy at being back didn't last long, I would've guessed at three games before normal service was resumed.

It still doesn't explain why this was so distressing to folk although it could simply be that some were waiting for to moan, some to moan about refs, and others to moan about rules. The only thing missing was blaming the RFL. Give it a minute ....

 

 

 

[Chrispmartha]

9 minutes ago, Oxford said:

It was not plainly incorrect as the rules stand. I think some would dispute water is wet if a ref or video ref called against their team.

The point I was making was that the excitement and even joy at being back didn't last long, I would've guessed at three games before normal service was resumed.

It still doesn't explain why this was so distressing to folk although it could simply be that some were waiting for to moan, some to moan about refs, and others to moan about rules. The only thing missing was blaming the RFL. Give it a minute ....

 

 

 

It was incorrect, there was an angle that clearly showed he didn’t get the ball down.

It was a talking point in a great game, it didn’t stop me enjoying it even though it went against my team, you’re post is just hyperbole

[Oxford]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

It was incorrect, there was an angle that clearly showed he didn’t get the ball down.

It was a talking point in a great game, it didn’t stop me enjoying it even though it went against my team, you’re post is just hyperbole

No it went up as a try and the vid ref felt it was okay as a decision.

Hyperbole comes in tomorrows read it and weep now does it?

And it was a good game and there seemed to be lots of them yesterday too.

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, Oxford said:

No it went up as a try and the vid ref felt it was okay as a decision.

That doesn’t mean it was the correct call does it.

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, LeeF said:

If you are able to read something with an open mind and are able to see something from a different point of view Ian Smith has tweeted a very good explanation of the Charnley decision - sorry I can’t link it

I don't think Ian Smith added anything new from a protocol point of view, the way he described it was the same as most understand it here - what he did do, was put doubt around the 'conclusive' angle that many (me included) thought proved it was no try. I have only seen his answer to this (that the ball is obscured at 1.50) on a dodgy video on my mobile, but last night it looked clear to me. If it was out of view for a split second, then the no-try decision makes sense. 

[Oxford]

18 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

That doesn’t mean it was the correct call does it.

No it makes it the only one that matters though.

You could easily line it up with many more just as questionable.

It's what they always describe as you make your own luck.

[bobbruce]

6 hours ago, johnh1 said:

The ref simply needs to ask the video ref for his view of the incident and then make his decision with the benefit of that advice.  If the video ref is not sure then he should say so and the on field ref then makes the decision he would have made if there was no VR.

 

 

That’s basically what is happening now

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, Oxford said:

No it makes it the only one that matters though.

You could easily line it up with many more just as questionable.

It's what they always describe as you make your own luck.

Ok so we shouldn’t discuss the talking points of the game? As far as i recall it was the inly contentious VR call in the game.

You’ll notice I (and I don’t think anyone else on here) has said it’s the reason Leeds lost

[Oxford]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Ok so we shouldn’t discuss the talking points of the game? As far as i recall it was the inly contentious VR call in the game.

You’ll notice I (and I don’t think anyone else on here) has said it’s the reason Leeds lost

It's not the discussion it's the amount of traction, like it was more outrageous than any other decision.

And It's also Agar, who I used to have a lot of time for, who seems like a stuck record at present.

[Chrispmartha]

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

It's not the discussion it's the amount of traction, like it was more outrageous than any other decision.

And It's also Agar, who I used to have a lot of time for, who seems like a stuck record at present.

Agar was asked about it and made a point of saying it wasn’t the reason they lost, what would you want him to say.

 

As I said VR getting decisions wrong is quite rare, its bound to get talked about

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I don't think Ian Smith added anything new from a protocol point of view, the way he described it was the same as most understand it here - what he did do, was put doubt around the 'conclusive' angle that many (me included) thought proved it was no try. I have only seen his answer to this (that the ball is obscured at 1.50) on a dodgy video on my mobile, but last night it looked clear to me. If it was out of view for a split second, then the no-try decision makes sense. 

Having watched it on an iPad there is a couple of seconds where the ball is out of view.
Together with the protocol requirement of being conclusive I can fully understand and accept the decision. 

Whether the protocol is correct is a separate discussion especially when you remember the clubs & coaches agreed the current protocol 

[LeeF]

3 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Agar was asked about it and made a point of saying it wasn’t the reason they lost, what would you want him to say.

 

As I said VR getting decisions wrong is quite rare, its bound to get talked about

Whether it was wrong or not as per current protocols the hit rate of VR decisions being correct, as you state, is very high

[johnh1]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

That’s basically what is happening now

No it’s not. At the moment the video ref has to be sure the ref is wrong. I’m saying that the VR should give the on field ref his opinion, then let the on field ref decide. That’s totally different. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, johnh1 said:

No it’s not. At the moment the video ref has to be sure the ref is wrong. I’m saying that the VR should give the on field ref his opinion, then let the on field ref decide. That’s totally different. 

I think that approach is more in line with Union isn't it? 

[johnh1]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that approach is more in line with Union isn't it? 

I’ve got no idea!

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

I’ve got no idea!

nah, I couldn't vouch for it myself, but the odd time I've seen it in passing I think the ref watches it on the big screen along with the VR and they have a nice little chat about what is happening. I don't think it is particularly slick, but then that suits the sport.