What lazy accusations against match officials leads to

[LeeF]

40 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Just read Matt Shaw's defence of "scrutiny of referees" but missed the entire point that putting a video up and asking if the decision was right or wrong isn't scrutiny, it's encouraging those already enraged by a decision to get angrier. They know that when then put out those social media posts, and if they don't, they're being woefully unaware.

His latest article is a shocker. Trying to justify the unjustifiable springs to mind. When in a hole etc

[RigbyLuger]

4 minutes ago, LeeF said:

His latest article is a shocker. Trying to justify the unjustifiable springs to mind. When in a hole etc

He seems to be answering a point no-one is making. Match officials are under scrutiny. Everyone is. 

Would Rugby League Live tweet a video of a player dropping a ball or missing a tackle?

I do wonder where he got the video from, assuming he didn't download it from YouTube and edit it, maybe the RFL should ask that question.

[OriginalMrC]

Matt shaws latest piece is pretty disgraceful. No self awareness for the contribution the press have made to this situation. It's the actual opposite of what it should be. 

[phiggins]

Shaw's 'journalism' on the Hudds Leeds game has been bizarre to say the least. Quite how listing individual decisions, at the behest of the losing coach can be called scrutiny is beyond me. What makes it even more strange is that he seems to have a good accuracy rate when it comes to transfer stories, so on that front he must do the necessary work to verify the information that he's relaying. Yet here, he just relays the opinion of a losing coach on 4 decisions made (out of thousands), three of which seem like perfectly reasonable decisions frankly. Least he could do is get the opinion of a referee or former referee to add some balance if he's going to go ahead and write such a piece.

[Ragingbull]

So just so im clear, we cant criticize a ref if we think hes done a bad job but its ok to criticize a journo if we think hes written a bad article? 

Thats where things appear to be at right now? 

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, Ragingbull said:

So just so im clear, we cant criticize a ref if we think hes done a bad job but its ok to criticize a journo if we think hes written a bad article? 

Thats where things appear to be at right now? 

By all means, criticise the referee's performance, but keep it constructive and balanced. Also, unless there's conclusive proof that the decision was in fact wrong, then accept that the referee is just as likely, if not more likely to be correct than either of the coaches.

Shaw's coverage of the game did none of the above.

[overtheborder]

19 hours ago, meast said:

 

 

This is a good example of where the media perpetuate this, or, if we want to go even deeper into it, society perpetuates this sort of ref-bashing.

The media company here want clicks - so seem to be going for the "controversy sells" angle - which leads to inevitable ref-bashing. I suppose controversy selling is down to society being interested in controversy, in the same way as people are interested in tabloid articles about celebrity scandals.

I've no idea how to sort it (maybe each person voting with their clicks/wallets by just flat out ignoring this kind of dross), but it definitely seems to be a microcosm of wider society at the moment. Maybe a place to start would be to try our best as individuals in the RL community to be respectful towards those in our sport, and maybe people on the "outside" might take something from that.

Edit: to be clear I'm talking about the original post by the RugbyLeague account rather than bashing Alex!

Edited August 30, 2023 by overtheborder
Clarity

[HullWire]

54 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Shaw's 'journalism' on the Hudds Leeds game has been bizarre to say the least. Quite how listing individual decisions, at the behest of the losing coach can be called scrutiny is beyond me. What makes it even more strange is that he seems to have a good accuracy rate when it comes to transfer stories, so on that front he must do the necessary work to verify the information that he's relaying. Yet here, he just relays the opinion of a losing coach on 4 decisions made (out of thousands), three of which seem like perfectly reasonable decisions frankly. Least he could do is get the opinion of a referee or former referee to add some balance if he's going to go ahead and write such a piece.

Could have the accuracy rate because he is close to players and coaches, which is probably why he is pointing at the ref for Leeds losing rather than the players or coach

[LeeF]

13 minutes ago, HullWire said:

Could have the accuracy rate because he is close to players and coaches, which is probably why he is pointing at the ref for Leeds losing rather than the players or coach

And he doesn’t want to upset his “sources”. 

[Chrispmartha]

I don't think Matt Shaw will have many close sources at the Leeds Club, Leeds are pretty guarded when it comes to recruitment matters and have consistently said they don't discuss it with anyone, Pete Smith from the YEP  used to be the go to guy for Leeds stuff as they would often seem to use him as a part of their PR but that seems to have stopped as well.

Basically and I do feel a bit sorry for them is that they will be judged on clicks and unfortunately its always the gutter type articles that get the most its just the Social Media age which I s having a massive negative effect on society as a whole IMO.

[M j M]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Quite how listing individual decisions, at the behest of the losing coach

You're just making stuff up.

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, M j M said:

You're just making stuff up.

How else would you describe this? https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/four-refereeing-calls-leeds-rhinos-27608974

 

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

How else would you describe this? https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/four-refereeing-calls-leeds-rhinos-27608974

 

The only quote from Smith in there is from the press conference. Anyone who was at the game knew what the controversial incidents were.

Matt Shaw just rehashes press conferences (that he has already reported on) over the course of the week and picks things out of social media. If you think his strings are pulled by Rohan Smith then you have a very weak grasp on reality.

 

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

The only quote from Smith in there is from the press conference. Anyone who was at the game knew what the controversial incidents were.

Matt Shaw just rehashes press conferences (that he has already reported on) over the course of the week and picks things out of social media. If you think his strings are pulled by Rohan Smith then you have a very weak grasp on reality.

 

Well somebody has highlighted those incidents as the calls that angered Leeds. And somebody has also provided him with the video with the ref's audio.

But the point stands, that that article does not scrutinise the referee, it simply relays criticism of specific decisions, without any real proof that they were even incorrect. 

I'd say anybody that thinks that the result of that game was down to referee inadequacies rather than Leeds' own, would have an even weaker grasp of reality. 

On a side note, I dread to think what will be out on social media after the Grand Final, if this is the reaction to a close to meaningless game.

[JonM]

I listened to Rohan Smith being interviewed on BBC Leeds on the way back home on Sunday, and he seemed to spend quite a long time on veiled criticism of refereeing decisions albeit all done in a way that wouldn't draw a fine - "i was surprised that xxx happened", "Huddersfield were allowed to do xxx", "coaches are having to guess on what the interpretation of xxx", "we had a meeting with referees after round 8 and it was agreed that xxx, but we'll need to follow up".

[RigbyLuger]

6 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Well somebody has highlighted those incidents as the calls that angered Leeds. And somebody has also provided him with the video with the ref's audio.

Would whoever provided that be in trouble for doing so? How he got hold of it could tell us who really wanted this story to dominate for days 

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, phiggins said:

15 minutes ago, M j M said:

Matt Shaw just rehashes press conferences (that he has already reported on) over the course of the week and picks things out of social media. If you think his strings are pulled by Rohan Smith then you have a very weak grasp on reality.

Well somebody has highlighted those incidents as the calls that angered Leeds. And somebody has also provided him with the video with the ref's audio.

But the point stands, that that article does not scrutinise the referee, it simply relays criticism of specific decisions, without any real proof that they were even incorrect. 

I'd say anybody that thinks that the result of that game was down to referee inadequacies rather than Leeds' own, would have an even weaker grasp of reality.

I note your abrupt pivot to an entirely different argument and your creation of a straw man to try and deflect (I've not made any comment at all on the game or any of the decisions).

[phiggins]

1 minute ago, M j M said:

I note your abrupt pivot to an entirely different argument and your creation of a straw man to try and deflect (I've not made any comment at all on the game or any of the decisions).

You think Matt Shaw just picked out those 4 incidents of his own accord?

[unapologetic pedant]

23 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

I also think the media need to stop with the clickbait articles and fans should stop analysing every detail

Officials have nothing to fear, and much to gain, from detailed analysis. The analyst needs to be reasonably intelligent. Ideally someone who has read and understood the RL rulebook. How many journalists and coaches meet these criteria?

 

21 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

Refs get things wrong - of course they do, but thats the game.
I've often thought having a TV segment post game where the referees can break down certain decisions - and admit they maybe got it wrong, if that was the case - would be a good insight and addition to a broadcast. And might help in getting some fans off their back.

Have to be careful with the word "wrong". A strictly inaccurate call is by no means always an incorrect application of the rules.

[M j M]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

You think Matt Shaw just picked out those 4 incidents of his own accord?

Do you even know how this sort of click bait journalism works? It certainly doesn't involve waiting for the head coach of a SL team to review the video and decide that the best way to spend his time is by compiling a list of things for Matt Shaw to write about.

 

[sam4731]

In the same way that if you speed you have to go on a speed awareness course, if a coach criticises a referee, they should have to go on a referee course... and then referee an under 11's game, where all the parents can come up to them afterwards and explain every wrong decision they made.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, M j M said:

Do you even know how this sort of click bait journalism works? It certainly doesn't involve waiting for the head coach of a SL team to review the video and decide that the best way to spend his time is by compiling a list of things for Matt Shaw to write about.

 

Ok, I'll take back the head coach bit. But I still think he will have had some sort of word from someone within the club highlighting these incidents. Shaw covers a lot of games, and for his faults, a lot of his content is more than just the average article created from a tweet like you get from the likes of SARL. 

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, JohnM said:

 no more telling players they are not square at the ptb for example- penalise them, please....

Inadvertently being not square at the PTB is not illegal. Taking advantage is. Defenders are given the chance to put themselves back onside. Only if they fail to heed the call should they be penalized. This is good refereeing. And illustrates why simplistic answers are often inappropriate in a game which is not as simple as generally assumed.

[sam4731]

30 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Inadvertently being not square at the PTB is not illegal. Taking advantage is. Defenders are given the chance to put themselves back onside. Only if they fail to heed the call should they be penalized. This is good refereeing. And illustrates why simplistic answers are often inappropriate in a game which is not as simple as generally assumed.

A player is also not offside if they were within 10 when the ball is played but are not involved until the player in possession has made 10 metres. Its good refereeing to let players know they're in an offside position because it avoids unnecessary penalties. I mean fans are always complaining about referees who are too whistle happy. They just can't win.

[JohnM]

54 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Inadvertently being not square at the PTB is not illegal. Taking advantage is. Defenders are given the chance to put themselves back onside. Only if they fail to heed the call should they be penalized. This is good refereeing. And illustrates why simplistic answers are often inappropriate in a game which is not as simple as generally assumed.

Inadvertently being not square at the PTB is not illegal. 

...but it should be.