Sat 5th Nov: RLWC: New Zealand v Fiji KO 19:30

[DavidM]

I thought it was a loose carry , I still think it’s a loose carry , I think instances like that are and should be judged loose carries . I thought the ref got it right . Maybe half my issue is , as in foul play when the player stays down , the random intervention of the VR during play coming in to look at something that’s happened in a split second and judging it frame by frame . To me in a put down for a try fine , but in things like this it’s just contrary to how the game should be viewed or officiated . You can reach any conclusion you want and ironically it’s just another opinion like the onfield ref half the time 

[Davo5]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Kinell I have touched a nerve there sweetheart.

Not really but you are yet again derailing a thread but I suppose trying to pick an argument out of nowhere on an Internet forum at least gives your better half a brief respite on a Sunday morning.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Two people did see it as a certainty though Dunny, firstly the ref who gave a 'loose carry' then the VR who gave a 'strip', and it is of no consequence but the reaction from Manu's face said I may as well appeal I have nothing to lose, he didn't seem that confident in his protestations to the ref, no gasp horror at the decision given against him.

We could debate all day about how referee's come to decisions.  I would suggest there is very little 'certainty' about it, it is mostly about the balance of probability or balance of opinion in these situations.

But that is not my point anyway.  My point is stop using childish names for referees who happen to make a decision you don't agree with.

Some people on here think it was a loose carry.  Some think it was a strip.  And some (like me) are undecided and happy to accept that either interpretation could have been given.

And yet still, some people are happy to call the video ref an idiot.

[Davo5]

4 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I thought it was a loose carry , I still think it’s a loose carry , I think instances like that are and should be judged loose carries . I thought the ref got it right . Maybe half my issue is , as in foul play when the player stays down , the random intervention of the VR during play coming in to look at something that’s happened in a split second and judging it frame by frame . To me in a put down for a try fine , but in things like this it’s just contrary to how the game should be viewed or officiated . You can reach any conclusion you want and ironically it’s just another opinion like the onfield ref half the time 

I missed the 2nd half & only just viewed the incident,loose carry for me.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Davo5 said:

Not really but you are yet again derailing a thread but I suppose trying to pick an argument out of nowhere on an Internet forum at least gives your better half a brief respite on a Sunday morning.

I merely reacted to a post that I disagreed with, another poster gave a reason why he thought the opposite would happen, I answered him not picking an argument as you put it but as useual you just place an emoji which with the amount of times you do that it make you seem incapable and very hard of thinking.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But that is not my point anyway.  My point is stop using childish names for referees who happen to make a decision you don't agree with.

Is that directed at me? I don't recall delivering any childish names in fact I have only commented on the incident this morning.

I went through the reasons why I thought it was a bad decision and finished with my opinion of the VR Mr Grant with his refereeing capabilities, which is not gleamed from just this incident but through expierience of seeing him officiating in quite a few games previously, now don't tell me that you don't have opinions on the quality of the referees we have at our disposal.

[The Masked Poster]

I'm not remotely religious but I will miss Fiji and their terrific hymn singing. Truly spiritual stuff. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Is that directed at me? I don't recall delivering any childish names in fact I have only commented on the incident this morning.

I am talking in general.  We are only having this one to one conversation because you quoted my first post this morning.  I have not named anyone. 

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I went through the reasons why I thought it was a bad decision and finished with my opinion of the VR Mr Grant with his refereeing capabilities, which is not gleamed from just this incident but through expierience of seeing him officiating in quite a few games previously, now don't tell me that you don't have opinions on the quality of the referees we have at our disposal.

I have stated several times on here (probably quite a few) when I have disagreed or agreed with on-field decisions.  What I try not to do is make it about a specific referee and what I never do is resort to name calling of the ref.

[Gambass]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

That residency thing to 3 years was just a suggestion from a poster on here, it is absolutely absurd to even contemplate living 3 years in another country qualifies someone to play internationally, 5 years is bad enough.

Anyway thank you for having an opinion why you think France will improve player wise unlike @Davo5.

The reason I don't think France will get enough French lads of sufficient talent for their international team to be elevated in the World rankings is that they do not have enough immigrants into the SH systems to produce players of the right calibre and take advantage of the 'heritage' ruling, and secondly the other handling code is so strong in France and so much wealthier that the vast majority of the better player's suited to "Rugby" League or Union will chose the latter as a career path.

Considering how weak the heritage rule is... I'd say spending 5 minutes in a airport somewhere as a residency rule would be ok.

[Alan Robertson]

1 hour ago, tim2 said:

When I was reffing you had to assess the security of the ball and the level of contact. It happens quickly and it should be, in real time, very clear to give the strip call. The ball carrier can't just have the ball so loose that a flick by the defender dislodges it. This looked way worse on video than in real time. Real time is better IMO.

Absolutely, the real-time images should've (at the very least) been strongly considered. In real-time, it looked nothing like a strip. 

It was a very poor decision. Not as bad a Liam Moore's '20 metre restart' decision though. That one was indefensible.

[Guest]

 

[Niels]

22 minutes ago, Alan Robertson said:

Absolutely, the real-time images should've (at the very least) been strongly considered. In real-time, it looked nothing like a strip. 

It was a very poor decision. Not as bad a Liam Moore's '20 metre restart' decision though. That one was indefensible.

What should the video ref have done for the Liam Moore error?

Had the game stopped when he blew his whistle? If so, the ball was in the air then so how should the game have re-started?

 

[meast]

3 hours ago, JohnM said:

I was unable to watch this game owing to previous commitment but I was able to keep up with progress thanks to texts etc from friend and wife and of course, sneaky peeks at the forum.

Is the following a fair summary?

1. Great game from start to finish.

2. Fiji could have should have won.

3. The ref was useless.

4.  The video ref was useless.

5. The above 2 points resulted in Fiji being robbed.

6. The ground was empty.

1. Yes, a proper game of international RL.

2. Could have, yes, should have? no.

3. Not really no.

4. Not particularly, although the Manu "strip" could have gone the other way.

5. No, Fiji's lack of being unable to see the game out at 18-12 and the soft try conceded resulted in Fiji not winning.

6. No, it was just over 1/3rd full, disappointing but a great game, occasion and atmosphere for those of us who did go.

[EggFace]

Saw bits of Scotland v Fiji Rugby Union and the Fiji team look 2nd rate compared to the Fijian Rugby League team.

[DavidM]

Why didn’t the Saifiti brothers , Tariq Sims and Waqa Blake not turn up ? I wonder what they thought watching that ( unless they’re all injured )

[StandOffHalf]

I agree that it's a subjective call on the Kikau strip. I would like it to stick with the on-field call when it's unclear and 50/50. I think there's an element of throwing it up there by Manu and hoping the VR sides with him.

I'm not outraged by the call and could actually see it either way. I just think it's a slight playing with the system, akin to lying down and hoping for a penalty.

[MatthewWoody]

What a game. 

Very sad for Fiji. 

Now, I just don't see this Kiwi side - tired after this heavy battle - beating the Kangaroos. 

 

[Archie Gordon]

2 hours ago, Niels said:

What should the video ref have done for the Liam Moore error?

Had the game stopped when he blew his whistle? If so, the ball was in the air then so how should the game have re-started?

 

Liam Moore should have known immediately that he couldn't actually refer it because there were no circumstances in which it might have been a try.

Having mistakenly referred it, he ought to have warned the video ref that he'd blown his whistle (and the ball was not in play) when it was touched down. I'm not sure what instructions he gave the video ref.

The video ref should have had alarm bells ringing in his own head anyway. Even if he'd been referred it by an absolute beginner, it was very clear that the ref had blown his whistle for a 20m restart quite some time before the ball was touched down.

Yesterday, I thought it might possibly have been a GLDO for a knock-on but, thinking about it some more, it couldn't have been that either. Moore got it wrong and blew early but the situation didn't have a remedy. 20m restart.

 

[Bobby123]

Best game of the series, up to press. Bit of "niggling" and putting it about. Figi 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Liam Moore should have known immediately that he couldn't actually refer it because there were no circumstances in which it might have been a try.

Having mistakenly referred it, he ought to have warned the video ref that he'd blown his whistle (and the ball was not in play) when it was touched down. I'm not sure what instructions he gave the video ref.

The video ref should have had alarm bells ringing in his own head anyway. Even if he'd been referred it by an absolute beginner, it was very clear that the ref had blown his whistle for a 20m restart quite some time before the ball was touched down.

Yesterday, I thought it might possibly have been a GLDO for a knock-on but, thinking about it some more, it couldn't have been that either. Moore got it wrong and blew early but the situation didn't have a remedy. 20m restart.

 

What actually happened there? I only saw it at the ground, but what did Moore actually think had happened? 

[Tippytoe]

3 hours ago, DavidM said:

I thought it was a loose carry , I still think it’s a loose carry , I think instances like that are and should be judged loose carries . I thought the ref got it right . Maybe half my issue is , as in foul play when the player stays down , the random intervention of the VR during play coming in to look at something that’s happened in a split second and judging it frame by frame . To me in a put down for a try fine , but in things like this it’s just contrary to how the game should be viewed or officiated . You can reach any conclusion you want and ironically it’s just another opinion like the onfield ref half the time 

The difference between policing of the game by different hemispheres also comes into this my view is the home reffing tends to be more pedantic than southern hemispheres who tend to encourage open play.

[Bobby123]

Best game of the series, up to press, IMO. Bit of niggling and putting it about a bit along  with some good rugby. Really sorry for the Fijian lads. They gave everything and certainly put the opposition off their game.

[Archie Gordon]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What actually happened there? I only saw it at the ground, but what did Moore actually think had happened? 

Johnston looked like he was going to take it cleanly in goal and Moore blew his whistle before he had secured it. Johnston didn't secure the ball.

But the whistle was clear and immediately play was no longer live. Makinson came through to touch it down some moments later.

England were rightly upset and Moore either referred it to the VR for a decision or it was a captain's challenge. But, as I say, both Moore and the VR should have known that nothing that happened after the whistle was live. 

Sorry, I realise this is intruding on the NZL-FIJ thread.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

Johnston looked like he was going to take it cleanly in goal and Moore blew his whistle before he had secured it. Johnston didn't secure the ball.

But the whistle was clear and immediately play was no longer live. Makinson came through to touch it down some moments later.

England were rightly upset and Moore either referred it to the VR for a decision or it was a captain's challenge. But, as I say, both Moore and the VR should have known that nothing that happened after the whistle was live. 

Sorry, I realise this is intruding on the NZL-FIJ thread.

Thanks. It's possibly the worst piece of refereeing I've ever seen. Thankfully it wasn't crucial. 

[Spidey]

Moore didn’t refer it. It was a captains challenge rightly taken by Tomkins about the restart, I didn’t think in those circumstances a try could/should have been awarded