Fri 22nd Sept: SL: Leigh Leopards v Wigan Warriors KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Derwent]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Must say I didn't see this at the game.

Ooh you are in bother Bevan, a few years ago any contact with the ref was hit with sinbinnings and suspensions this was as bad as any of those.

If there is any consistency Bevan  should be able to take an extended holiday back home to Aus his season here should be very over and done with, if Paul Vaughan received 4 games for a very innocuous but 'purposeful action' on an opponent then French in contacting the ref should be equal if not more.

 

I think Lam may be having a bit of break too then….

[Damien]

 

 

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I agree.

While I think the NRL process is better, there was nothing in our process that meant the correct call couldn't have been made last night.

In the end, for whatever reason, the VR didn't have the confidence to overturn the on field decision as he should have.

I don't think the process prohibits the correct decision being made, but imo it influences the decision that the VR comes up with, and imo it is unnecessary and only brings a poor outcome. I see next to no benefit.

As has been pointed out, the VR suggested it was fine on the very first comment. However his attitude that he absolutely had to disprove the ref meant that we ended up in this cycle of self doubt and ultimately (imo) we ended up with the wrong decision. 

So, whilst it is always possible that a VR just makes a poor call (and we have seen that plenty), I think it is difficult to state that the process didn't influence him. His sole focus should be 'was there obstruction' not whether he could prove the ref wrong or right - the ref has already shown doubt about his decision. 

I can understand people not wanting to change the process, that becomes an opinion piece, but the current process absolutely played a part in how that decision was reached. My preference is that we just simply go back to asking the VR to look at it and make their decision on whether it's a try. 

[Derwent]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think the process prohibits the correct decision being made, but imo it influences the decision that the VR comes up with, and imo it is unnecessary and only brings a poor outcome. I see next to no benefit.

As has been pointed out, the VR suggested it was fine on the very first comment. However his attitude that he absolutely had to disprove the ref meant that we ended up in this cycle of self doubt and ultimately (imo) we ended up with the wrong decision. 

So, whilst it is always possible that a VR just makes a poor call (and we have seen that plenty), I think it is difficult to state that the process didn't influence him. His sole focus should be 'was there obstruction' not whether he could prove the ref wrong or right - the ref has already shown doubt about his decision. 

I can understand people not wanting to change the process, that becomes an opinion piece, but the current process absolutely played a part in how that decision was reached. My preference is that we just simply go back to asking the VR to look at it and make their decision on whether it's a try. 

There aren’t many things the other code do better than us but I think their review system is much better. The ref asks the TMO “is there any reason why I can’t award a try” which doesn’t put pressure on the TMO to prove or disprove an on-field decision, he can call it as he sees it.

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So, whilst it is always possible that a VR just makes a poor call (and we have seen that plenty), I think it is difficult to state that the process didn't influence him. His sole focus should be 'was there obstruction' not whether he could prove the ref wrong or right - the ref has already shown doubt about his decision. 

This, perfectly put Dave.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Derwent said:

There aren’t many things the other code do better than us but I think their review system is much better. The ref asks the TMO “is there any reason why I can’t award a try” which doesn’t put pressure on the TMO to prove or disprove an on-field decision, he can call it as he sees it.

That seems a perfectly reasonable method, but I wouldn't know that, watching union is not a favourite way I can think of spending a couple of hours doing.

[Dunbar]

26 minutes ago, Derwent said:

There aren’t many things the other code do better than us but I think their review system is much better. The ref asks the TMO “is there any reason why I can’t award a try” which doesn’t put pressure on the TMO to prove or disprove an on-field decision, he can call it as he sees it.

That specific wording may be better, but not the whole TMO process.

They have the referee and his two assistants looking at the TV and discussing incidents with the TMO and the whole thing just takes an age as they make a committee decision.

[phiggins]

43 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think the process prohibits the correct decision being made, but imo it influences the decision that the VR comes up with, and imo it is unnecessary and only brings a poor outcome. I see next to no benefit.

As has been pointed out, the VR suggested it was fine on the very first comment. However his attitude that he absolutely had to disprove the ref meant that we ended up in this cycle of self doubt and ultimately (imo) we ended up with the wrong decision. 

So, whilst it is always possible that a VR just makes a poor call (and we have seen that plenty), I think it is difficult to state that the process didn't influence him. His sole focus should be 'was there obstruction' not whether he could prove the ref wrong or right - the ref has already shown doubt about his decision. 

I can understand people not wanting to change the process, that becomes an opinion piece, but the current process absolutely played a part in how that decision was reached. My preference is that we just simply go back to asking the VR to look at it and make their decision on whether it's a try. 

Imo, the on field call should only come into it if the video ref cannot see the incident in question. Most common scenario would be where they’re asked to check the grounding but there are no camera angles showing the ball. Cricket do similar now, when a third umpire checks catch.

What we had last night was an on field referee that was unsure (hence going to the screen, as opposed to giving the penalty like he did a few minutes earlier), then a video ref thinking it’s fine but not wanting to overturn the uncertain decision. Renders the whole video ref pointless 

[bobbruce]

54 minutes ago, Derwent said:

There aren’t many things the other code do better than us but I think their review system is much better. The ref asks the TMO “is there any reason why I can’t award a try” which doesn’t put pressure on the TMO to prove or disprove an on-field decision, he can call it as he sees it.

I thought their ref has two different ways he can ask the question. One tells the tmo he thinks a try’s been scored and one tells him he doesn’t. I think the one you’ve mentioned means he thinks it’s a try and the tmo has to find something to cancel it. The other way to ask is “is it a try yes or no” which I think he uses when he’s unsure or has doubts. There is also another way but I think that’s to do with foul play and penalty try’s. 

[bobbruce]

27 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Imo, the on field call should only come into it if the video ref cannot see the incident in question. Most common scenario would be where they’re asked to check the grounding but there are no camera angles showing the ball. Cricket do similar now, when a third umpire checks catch.

What we had last night was an on field referee that was unsure (hence going to the screen, as opposed to giving the penalty like he did a few minutes earlier), then a video ref thinking it’s fine but not wanting to overturn the uncertain decision. Renders the whole video ref pointless 

Again though even in cricket the umpire gives a soft signal of out or not out. If the third umpire can’t tell it goes with the soft signal given by the on field umpire. 

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Again though even in cricket the umpire gives a soft signal of out or not out. If the third umpire can’t tell it goes with the soft signal given by the on field umpire. 

It has been tweaked recently in cricket meaning the soft signal carries much less weight. It’s only used if there’s a failure in the tech or no replays available 

[Padge]

Well I enjoyed the game, thought the players put on a fantastic show.

Ref, who cares, they have a job to do like most other people do, most people don't have a camera team watching their every move. If they did they would probably realise how really $h!t at their own job they are compared to refs.

[bobbruce]

6 minutes ago, phiggins said:

It has been tweaked recently in cricket meaning the soft signal carries much less weight. It’s only used if there’s a failure in the tech or no replays available 

I don’t think so you used checking catches as your example and because of the difficulty of checking them the soft signal still carries a lot of weight. Even in general for say LBW the soft signal will give more weight to whatever the umpire has said. So the 3rd umpire will use umpires call for any borderline decisions. 

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I don’t think so you used checking catches as your example and because of the difficulty of checking them the soft signal still carries a lot of weight. Even in general for say LBW the soft signal will give more weight to whatever the umpire has said. So the 3rd umpire will use umpires call for any borderline decisions. 

In fact I take it back. For checking catches they’ve scrapped the soft signal altogether, because it was never overturned. So it is now just left to the 3rd umpire.

For LBW decisions that go to the third umpire, ball tracking effectively makes the decision for the third umpire. Umpire’s call comes in when the ball tracking can only give a certain level of confidence of where it’s pitched, hit the pad, or going on to hit. But it is the technology that decides to go with the umpire’s decision. 

The technology offered to video ref’s in Super League is archaic compared to other sports. This, and the fact that there seems to be a massively high threshold that needs to be met to overturn the on field decision, makes the video ref a waste of time in my opinion. 

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I don't think the process prohibits the correct decision being made, but imo it influences the decision that the VR comes up with, and imo it is unnecessary and only brings a poor outcome. I see next to no benefit.

Key point for me is why it was sent up as no-try. My usual mantra that obstructions/knock-ons/forward passes should only be called if officials are certain means that if there's any doubt the ref should send it up as a try. Just as he should play on if the move doesn't result in a try. Then the VR has to find something clear-cut to rule it out. That brings the underpinning logic closer to the NRL without any change of process.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, phiggins said:

In fact I take it back. For checking catches they’ve scrapped the soft signal altogether, because it was never overturned. So it is now just left to the 3rd umpire.

For LBW decisions that go to the third umpire, ball tracking effectively makes the decision for the third umpire. Umpire’s call comes in when the ball tracking can only give a certain level of confidence of where it’s pitched, hit the pad, or going on to hit. But it is the technology that decides to go with the umpire’s decision. 

The technology offered to video ref’s in Super League is archaic compared to other sports. This, and the fact that there seems to be a massively high threshold that needs to be met to overturn the on field decision, makes the video ref a waste of time in my opinion. 

I think cricket has it pretty much spot on now - especially with the clearly defined 'Umpire's Call'. The problem being the set up isn't really transferable to RL.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

The other way to ask is “is it a try yes or no” which I think he uses when he’s unsure or has doubts. 

Effectively, we used to have that. Problems and long delays ensued when the VR's honest answer was "On the best available angle - I don't know".

[Padge]

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Key point for me is why it was sent up as no-try. My usual mantra that obstructions/knock-ons/forward passes should only be called if officials are certain means that if there's any doubt the ref should send it up as a try. Just as he should play on if the move doesn't result in a try. Then the VR has to find something clear-cut to rule it out. That brings the underpinning logic closer to the NRL without any change of process.

The only call, in the laws of the game. that should be given as a try is if the ref doesn't see the ball grounded he cannot disallow a try. That law seems to be ignored as all unsighted groundings should go up as a try.

Obstructions etc. are based on as the ref sees it and the more views/angles you have tend to show that where you view it from makes a massive difference.

I am not getting into this one as people have made their mind up before the first replay.

First rule of sport, you accept the refs decision,.

[phiggins]

21 minutes ago, Padge said:

 

First rule of sport, you accept the refs decision,.

Which is one reason to scrap the video ref 

[Padge]

Just now, phiggins said:

Which is one reason to scrap the video ref 

That genie cannot be put back in the bottle. As soon as a replay shows a blatant, and I mean very blatant error, which will happen then the screams for VR will be massively loud.

Leave it to close calls and accept what is given, it really isn't worth the blood pressure.

[Exiled Wiganer]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

Which is one reason to scrap the video ref 

Err, you do realise that the referee was not going to give the try, don’t you? 

I agree, as it happens but I am not sure how that sits with the Leigh fans boo hoo woe is me hysteria. 

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Err, you do realise that the referee was not going to give the try, don’t you? 

I agree, as it happens but I am not sure how that sits with the Leigh fans boo hoo woe is me hysteria. 

Yes I do realise that. While I disagree with the decision reached, I have a broader issue with the fact that we have a system in place, asking the video ref to decide whether or not to overrule the on field ref, with minimal technology to support him in that job.

Personally, I’d rather have no video ref, than a video ref at every game 

[Jinking Jimmy]

On 23/09/2023 at 09:41, EagleEyePie said:

It was needless, but didn't James Harrison escape a ban for this offence earlier this year as they deemed the contact unnecessary but passive as he was asking for attention? No idea what the usual punishments are for this offence these days or how they grade them. It's not comparable to Vaughan's offence (harsh as that outcome was).

Law 15.1 Deliberate or reckless physical contact with a match official ( eg placing hand on arm to attract attention)

Last season McCarthy-Scarsbrook (August and September) and Makinson (September) were charged with this offence. LMS escaped a ban for the first offence and received one match for the second. Makinson was cautioned.

[PEANUT HEAD]

Next season we can do away with the ref sending it up try no try and  have the ref just award a try and the video ref checks every try like in the nrl.

[phiggins]

16 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I think cricket has it pretty much spot on now - especially with the clearly defined 'Umpire's Call'. The problem being the set up isn't really transferable to RL.

Of the three sports that I follow in any detail (RL, Cricket, Football), cricket has by far done the best job of developing it's use of technology to help officials. As well as updating it's protocols (number of reviews, use of soft signal, when you lose a review), there has been a ton of work done to improve the technology. Ball tracking has been worked on to improve it's level of confidence and managed to win over a reluctant BCCI. Ultra edge is now available, after initially being something that would take too long to use in DRS, meaning the fairly unreliable hotspot became a thing of the past.

You are right, in that a lot of the items used in cricket isn't transferable, as decisions like obstruction will always be a subjective call. But it is a real shame that nearly 30 years on from bringing in the video ref, we still have not got any technology to offer a VR any visual clues on things like whether a player is onside from the kick, or if they are within 10 metres, whether a ball travelled forward in relation to the ground or even if a ball has gone between the sticks from a drop goal / kick at goal. This combined with the fact that we seem to have a relatively low number of cameras at televised games compared to other sports, and the ones that are there don't seem particularly good quality (as soon as slow motion, or any attempt to get a close up, just results in a blur) makes the VR job pretty diffucult. Adding the on field call renders it virtually redundant imo.

Given the sport seems to have neither the money or the will to introduce any better technology to assist, I'd sooner scrap the VR altogether.