Coaches critical of referees and match review committee

[ELBOWSEYE]

With Paul Wellens and Paul Rowley being brought to the RFL over comments on referees and the match review committee is it now more important for the RFL to come down hard on coaches who publicly do this.

It doesn't help when coaches have double standards, previously playing down incidents that their own players do or when decision go for them and help them win games.

[Tommygilf]

I think Wellens with such contrasting views on Asiata and then Bell a week or so later is exceptionally poor form from him. Again there is also an issue of profile, being at a bigger club gives you, rightly or wrongly, a more prominent voice.

[Lowdesert]

Doing it in the right place at the right time they should absolutely be allowed.

Ranting on TV or in social media absolutely not.

Big fines for them both donated to RL Cares.

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Doing it in the right place at the right time they should absolutely be allowed.

Ranting on TV or in social media absolutely not.

Big fines for them both donated to RL Cares.

totally agree.. there are, or should be, channels to make these complaints, publicly on TV etc is not it.

I would say that it would be different if they had gone down these and found road blocks etc but that would need to be made very clear at the time (and actually that is what the rant should be about).. that is not the case here as the rant was so close to the game.

[phiggins]

Rowley should definitely get some form of punishment. He's not stopped too far short from what Griffin did to get a big ban. The sport is struggling to get enough people to be referees, to keep the standard up and nonsense like Rowley's comments won't help.  And for all that, I'm not sure the video of the incidents really show any conclusive proof that the ref was wrong! 

[The Blues Ox]

Video ref at every game and a captains challenge would get rid of some of this nonsense. The technology is there so why are the RFL so reluctant to help the refs out?

[phiggins]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

Video ref at every game and a captains challenge would get rid of some of this nonsense. The technology is there so why are the RFL so reluctant to help the refs out?

Is the technology there? If we had video ref with the current production available at non-TV games, I'm not sure a single decision would ever get overturned anyway. 

Once we have enough cameras at games, there is then the question of whether we have enough referees to get a VR at every game.

[M j M]

30 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Is the technology there? If we had video ref with the current production available at non-TV games, I'm not sure a single decision would ever get overturned anyway. 

Once we have enough cameras at games, there is then the question of whether we have enough referees to get a VR at every game.

In terms of sheer numbers of officials, you'd save on 2 x in goal judges for every VR game. Although the seniority of the two roles obviously differ. 

[JohnM]

Let them speak out...

...but let them also suffer the consequences.

Fines to go into fund to support England national side. ......

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Is the technology there? If we had video ref with the current production available at non-TV games, I'm not sure a single decision would ever get overturned anyway. 

Once we have enough cameras at games, there is then the question of whether we have enough referees to get a VR at every game.

Coaches can have a replay in seconds so presuming that if you added another camera at the other side of the ground then you could at least have 2 angles which may help. It really does not need to have 8 camera angles and be studied for 5 minutes, it can be very basic but at least it offers some support to the refs. Like the Saints try under the posts against Salford that would have been very easy to look at and watch in slow motion from a single or double camera angle to see if the ball was travelling backwards off Saints and could have helped stop Rowley's moaning.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

In terms of sheer numbers of officials, you'd save on 2 x in goal judges for every VR game. Although the seniority of the two roles obviously differ. 

You would only save if you had a Sky or BBC number of cameras. One or two cameras in the stand wouldn’t be able to do the In Goal job

Edited August 8, 2023 by LeeF

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Video ref at every game and a captains challenge would get rid of some of this nonsense. The technology is there so why are the RFL so reluctant to help the refs out?

The RFL haven’t been reluctant it’s the clubs who have said no due to the costs as it’s not just the camera in the stand and a captains challenge wouldn’t solve things as the challenges in the last World Cup were poor and again you have the 1 camera issue. 

[dkw]

Hopefully they get absolutely hammered for this.

[sam4731]

Like I've said before, if people think that what they've done is OK and should carry on, I'd be happy to get on board as long as the MRP/Referees are also allowed the criticise how these lot coach. Think they'd be able to find lots more flaws in the coaches than the mistakes that they make.

[redjonn]

3 hours ago, RP London said:

totally agree.. there are, or should be, channels to make these complaints, publicly on TV etc is not it.

I would say that it would be different if they had gone down these and found road blocks etc but that would need to be made very clear at the time (and actually that is what the rant should be about).. that is not the case here as the rant was so close to the game.

depends on context.  For sure if being particularly critical of the ref, particularly  immediately after the game.  Never-the-less depending upon context they should be able to voice issues they see across the game on how rhe rules are applied.

For instance if one was to say they believed that player safety needed to be taken much more seriously as in a number of games head shots have not been penalised as harshly as they should be....

or

Take Rohan Smith at Leeds, he often comments about the ruck/PTB area as being an area that needs cleaning up as it slows and spoils the game plus takes away the attritional nature of the sport.  in his opinion its much better in the NRL and should be applied similar in SL

Given Rohan has raised in a number of times via official channels it would seem to me to be OK he voices in press discussion on his view of a game.   I don't think he has ever specifically called out a ref's specific decision. 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by redjonn

[RigbyLuger]

Would Rowley call one of his own players as a "disgrace" publicly? Is he wanting to deflect from their current run of form?

[phiggins]

42 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Coaches can have a replay in seconds so presuming that if you added another camera at the other side of the ground then you could at least have 2 angles which may help. It really does not need to have 8 camera angles and be studied for 5 minutes, it can be very basic but at least it offers some support to the refs. Like the Saints try under the posts against Salford that would have been very easy to look at and watch in slow motion from a single or double camera angle to see if the ball was travelling backwards off Saints and could have helped stop Rowley's moaning.

Maybe the coaches need to be seeing a better quality replay before slagging off officials' decisions?

You might not need 8 cameras but you'd certainly need more than two, and with high enough quality close ups to allow a VR to actually see what has happened. For the try under the posts, the question isn't just whether the ball travelled forwards or backwards off Knowles, it's which part of the body it came off. Ref deemed shoulder, would need a very good view to prove that wrong.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, redjonn said:

depends on context.  For sure if being particularly critical of the ref, particularly  immediately after the game.  Never-the-less depending upon context they should be able to voice issues they see across the game on how rhe rules are applied.

For instance if one was to say they believed that player safety needed to be taken much more seriously as in a number of games head shots have not been penalised as harshly as they should be....

or

Take Rohan Smith at Leeds, he often comments about the ruck/PTB area as being an area that needs cleaning up as it slows and spoils the game plus takes away the attritional nature of the sport.  in his opinion its much better in the NRL and should be applied similar in SL

Given Rohan has raised in a number of times via official channels it would seem to me to be OK he voices in press discussion on his view of a game.   I don't think he has ever specifically called out a ref's specific decision. 

 

The context is that these 2 cases were against a specific referee or the panel basically calling them out as cheats or having a bias against a club, that's the context.. general comments on the game or interpretation as a game wide issue is completely different to what is being discussed here to be fair. 

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Maybe the coaches need to be seeing a better quality replay before slagging off officials' decisions?

You might not need 8 cameras but you'd certainly need more than two, and with high enough quality close ups to allow a VR to actually see what has happened. For the try under the posts, the question isn't just whether the ball travelled forwards or backwards off Knowles, it's which part of the body it came off. Ref deemed shoulder, would need a very good view to prove that wrong.

Maybe, but then if can't have good enough VR at all games then shouldn't have them at any game and leave it purely to ref.   e.g. Leeds would have been happy to have had the try awarded last game except the VR had to review it a number of times to overrule ref... evne then it was debatable.

[redjonn]

Just now, RP London said:

The context is that these 2 cases were against a specific referee or the panel basically calling them out as cheats or having a bias against a club, that's the context.. general comments on the game or interpretation as a game wide issue is completely different to what is being discussed here to be fair. 

Fair enough, I guess my comment was about were you draw the line.  One could say Wellens was concerned about player safety and whether the type of tackle should be allowed.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Maybe, but then if can't have good enough VR at all games then shouldn't have them at any game and leave it purely to ref.   e.g. Leeds would have been happy to have had the try awarded last game except the VR had to review it a number of times to overrule ref... evne then it was debatable.

I agree, would much rather it was at all or no games at all. And if I had to pick between the two, I'd probably pick none at all.

Not sure that Leeds try was debatable though. Clear knock on, which was clear from the first replay. For some reason the VR chose to look at multiple angles where he couldn't see the ball before looking at the first angle again and confirming his decision.

[RP London]

14 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Fair enough, I guess my comment was about were you draw the line.  One could say Wellens was concerned about player safety and whether the type of tackle should be allowed.

IMHO the line is quite clear, he went straight at the RFL and the disciplinary "slamming" them for not punishing asiata for them and protecting his players which is wrong. While he may have a legitimate question about that type of tackle (debated on a different thread) its the way its presented, if its "these types of tackles are not good, no matter who does them, and I think we should look at it" in a calm controlled way then I would agree that that is a legitimate voice. Similar to Rohan smith in your example its a "game wide" opinion. To "slam" the RFL or judiciary for that one incident and "not protecting players" etc I think is the point he is out of order and needs to go through channels to find out, first, why they have done that as the panel will have looked and be able to justify it. After that its a game wide comment or a further complaint that there is inconsistency with evidence to back that up but again internally.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

If Wellens and Rowley (or other coaches) are found to be guilty and need to be punished, maybe the punishment should be compulsory attendance at a referees' course, with the need to qualify at the end of it.  No qualification, no coaching position in SL - simple!  (Okay, but maybe not entirely practical!)

[LeeF]

33 minutes ago, redjonn said:

depends on context.  For sure if being particularly critical of the ref, particularly  immediately after the game.  Never-the-less depending upon context they should be able to voice issues they see across the game on how rhe rules are applied.

For instance if one was to say they believed that player safety needed to be taken much more seriously as in a number of games head shots have not been penalised as harshly as they should be....

or

Take Rohan Smith at Leeds, he often comments about the ruck/PTB area as being an area that needs cleaning up as it slows and spoils the game plus takes away the attritional nature of the sport.  in his opinion its much better in the NRL and should be applied similar in SL

Given Rohan has raised in a number of times via official channels it would seem to me to be OK he voices in press discussion on his view of a game.   I don't think he has ever specifically called out a ref's specific decision. 

 

As already posted one is basically calling a certain referee or the MRP “cheats” which unacceptable in every instance. Smith’s comments are more general although it’s the bits he doesn’t say that are interesting eg Leeds have the second slowest ruck speed in SL which must be down to his coaching as they are doing something different to others or is it the type of player ie ones who get dominated in tackles  

Overall though in SL there is a lot of trapping defenders in by attackers in attempts to get penalties, which slows the ruck, and there are a high proportion, compared to the NRL, of surrender type tackles whereby the ball carrier is trying to dive to the ground again which slows the ruck down. BTW Leeds probably have the grandmaster of SL for that type of tackle although he is out for the rest of the season. 

[idrewthehaggis]

Both coaches will and should be talked to as their way of expressing their concerns is unhelpful.

However whilst the method may be wrong, the message endures.

The process may be faulty, the passion is faultless.

As a Red, the last four home games have witnessed some erm "Curious" refereeing decisions, the last three deciding the result.

Simply put, the standard is not good enough. Some are so poor, unbelievable so, that its real hard not to imagine there is something afoot going on. 

Our refs need help!!

One global set of Laws.

Video cameras and other technology at all SL/CC games

Use the above in the more comprehensive RU manner

A ref Academy to increase professionalism.

Australian/Europe work exchanges

Enhance the role of the Touch Judge

End the in random over familiarity with certain players refs, eh Sam and James

Better use of the media to explain decisions and the Laws.

Finer training and coaching of refs, players and officials.

Captain's Call. 

Restrict the number of players speaking to the Ref. 

Improve the mechanism in which Refs are evaluated and how players/officials can challenge.

Better refs means a better sport. Smiles around. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by idrewthehaggis