VR officials, has it gone to far.

[Harry Stottle]

In the Leigh v Hull FC game I was at the other end of the field from the 'Trout' incident when he got sent to the bin, seeing a very dominant tackle I immediately looked at the referee who took up his position in the defensive line and apparently had absolutely no reaction to the tackle, seeing the Hull lad stay on the floor I said to my mates that's 10mins for Trout 'what for it was just a strong hard tackle' they replied, I said yes but it is the norm now, stay down in a heavy tackle and the tackler gets 10mins, it seems the VR has to be involved and make his presence known.

Most were applauding the introduction of the VR at every game that it would be good, but I assume - rightly or wrongly - that was to adjudicate on contentious tries that were being awarded or rejected as it wasn't fair to just have VR's at 2 games that were being televised, I honestly think the involvement of the VR has gone way over the top, they are looking for and getting involved in what should be down to 'real time calls' from the on-field officials. 

Loopholes can be found in anything and if there is something that can be exploited it will be to gain an advantage, I think that coaches may well be instructing their charges "if you feel that in being tackled, you can make the most of it, stay down, chances are it will be to our advantage"

What with the present way the VR is operating and the Fine Tooth Scrutiny of the post Match Review Panel, I feel it is all going OTT, what next will be brought in I dread to think?

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

In the Leigh v Hull FC game I was at the other end of the field from the 'Trout' incident when he got sent to the bin, seeing a very dominant tackle I immediately looked at the referee who took up his position in the defensive line and apparently had absolutely no reaction to the tackle, seeing the Hull lad stay on the floor I said to my mates that's 10mins for Trout 'what for it was just a strong hard tackle' they replied, I said yes but it is the norm now, stay down in a heavy tackle and the tackler gets 10mins, it seems the VR has to be involved and make his presence known.

Most were applauding the introduction of the VR at every game that it would be good, but I assume - rightly or wrongly - that was to adjudicate on contentious tries that were being awarded or rejected as it wasn't fair to just have VR's at 2 games that were being televised, I honestly think the involvement of the VR has gone way over the top, they are looking for and getting involved in what should be down to 'real time calls' from the on-field officials. 

Loopholes can be found in anything and if there is something that can be exploited it will be to gain an advantage, I think that coaches may well be instructing their charges "if you feel that in being tackled, you can make the most of it, stay down, chances are it will be to our advantage"

What with the present way the VR is operating and the Fine Tooth Scrutiny of the post Match Review Panel, I feel it is all going OTT, what next will be brought in I dread to think?

I broadly think it is working well to be honest Harry. RL is a brutal sport, I don't have an issue with a little stoppage and quick check. 

I think we can get better with the tech, and I do think there are instances of poor calls/interpretations, but they are human and we won't ever get away from that. 

But I think overall it's been a success, yet not perfect. 

[phiggins]

One other point about the VR at that game is that the game took just shy of two hours to complete. Some completely unnecessary referrals for fairly regulation decisions, and then the VR taking an age, when both sets of players and everyone else in the ground have quickly realised what happened.

For the foul play stuff. I just can’t get my head around how a player can be sin binned for an opponent slipping in front of them. Or how officials are judging level of force. And players feigning injury makes it even worse. I see 3 alternatives for current setup on officiating foul play:

1) scrap the video ref altogether and let the MRP deal with anything the ref misses

2) only have VR review yellow cards already given by the ref. So they can rescind and send the player back on. Or upgrade to a ref if they think it is necessary. 

3) Allow play to continue while VR assesses a potential card incident. Go back and issue a card if necessary.

They’re probably in my order of preference 

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

One other point about the VR at that game is that the game took just shy of two hours to complete.

Harry will be missing his bus.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I broadly think it is working well to be honest Harry. RL is a brutal sport, I don't have an issue with a little stoppage and quick check. 

I think we can get better with the tech, and I do think there are instances of poor calls/interpretations, but they are human and we won't ever get away from that. 

But I think overall it's been a success, yet not perfect. 

A little stoppage and a quick check? when the VR gets involved it is seemingly not just a quick check Dave, and especially if you agree that the 'feining' of injury or put an other way 'cheating' is being exploited just because the VR is there, I am without doubt that it is, and then it is anything but a quick check.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

Harry will be missing his bus.

Too true.

[OriginalMrC]

Can't think of any sports where video refs have actually improved the spectacle of the sport itself. Yes video refereeing means potentially more 'correct decisions' but video technology in my view is ruining the sports for spectators. 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

A little stoppage and a quick check? when the VR gets involved it is seemingly not just a quick check Dave, and especially if you agree that the 'feining' of injury or put an other way 'cheating' is being exploited just because the VR is there, I am without doubt that it is, and then it is anything but a quick check.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to claim fake injuries. I think the reality is that when they stay down, they've usually been hit in the face by a 15-18st player. 

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Can't think of any sports where video refs have actually improved the spectacle of the sport itself. Yes video refereeing means potentially more 'correct decisions' but video technology in my view is ruining the sports for spectators. 

I think this is something we have just about stayed on the right side of, although we have absolutely dipped into the area of ruining some games with lengthy stoppages.

Im not sure what the optimal approach is, I think it's personal opinion really, as all have their faults and benefits. 

[gingerjon]

13 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Can't think of any sports where video refs have actually improved the spectacle of the sport itself. Yes video refereeing means potentially more 'correct decisions' but video technology in my view is ruining the sports for spectators. 

Cricket - and that's mainly because of how the experience of appealing and checking is now built into the whole experience of the match.

[OriginalMrC]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Cricket - and that's mainly because of how the experience of appealing and checking is now built into the whole experience of the match.

I would argue it hasn't made cricket better but I get the point 

[ivans82]

Cricket is a good example . I have advocated before give both sides 2 options to appeal a decision per match , if successful they keep the 2 decisions if not lose one . Meaning ref must give a decision , and VR only used on appeal .

[phiggins]

27 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to claim fake injuries. I think the reality is that when they stay down, they've usually been hit in the face by a 15-18st player. 

But there are a number of incidents where a player gets to one knee then just stops to hold their face, when last year they would've played the ball. 

I don't know how it works in Aus, but maybe players will be able to officially appeal for a penalty via captain's challenge if they bring it in?

[Harry Stottle]

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to claim fake injuries. I think the reality is that when they stay down, they've usually been hit in the face by a 15-18st player. 

Then I think you are being far to liberal in your thinking, coaches and player's will use any means these days to gain an advantage, the round ball game has taken it to the nth degree, and Rugby League is following suit. We are not yet quite up the round ball standards of rolling over in agony, but players are definitely staying down by choice to gain an advantage when not injured.

Yes I underlined these days as it has become a lot more evident since the introduction of VR's taking much more of an active role in 'live game' time.

In the not to distant past, players would 'stay down' when defending their territory to stop the game and to organise their defence, a tactic that a present first team coach Luke Robinson proudly claims he originated when playing at the Giants, it was easy to do he said and it got you time and stopped the opposition's momentum, the inclusion of the VR is now giving lots more opportunities to 'Cheat'.

[daz39]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to claim fake injuries. I think the reality is that when they stay down, they've usually been hit in the face by a 15-18st player. 

And in the past they got up gingerly and had attention on the move, are 15-18st players hitting harder than 5 years ago now?

I agree that some do seem to 'coax' the officials into having a look, i guess no one will really know the extent of their 'injury' only them.

[redjonn]

At least some players are recognising the staying down issue... George Williams for one on the Sky The Bench programme...

Personally the MRP is the place to determine if action needs taking if the ref doesn't see an issue.... then we should see less staying down unless player is hurt and needs injury attention, although I know it is used to slow momentum of opposition.

Not sure what can be done but its an issue on top of others that turn off existing fans which leads to non attendance/watching and ultimately adds to the slow demise of the sport

[daz39]

I was told last year at a meeting with a RL official that there were concerns the games were taking too long with various stoppages etc, they brought the green card in to speed it up, scrapped the pointless lining up pre kick off in front of disinterented fans, i was told that the match officials were encouraged to either make a decision on the field or make a quick decision as a VR.

We seem to have gone completely full circle to allow players to stay down to force the VR to have a look at things, and VR seem to take a minimum of 2 minutes to look at every incident and lets face it i reckon over 75% of 'tries' are now sent to the VR to confirm which again seems to take a minimum of 2 minutes even though some are clear and obvious on the 1st look.

We are now back to games taking over 2 hours to finish and we wonder why people are turning their backs and getting bored of the sport?

[JM2010]

I think the players are milking it now. I read somewhere that they’re going to start taking the player off for an automatic HIA in the NRL if they stay down. That could discourage the ones that aren’t genuinely hurt.

[Dave T]

32 minutes ago, phiggins said:

But there are a number of incidents where a player gets to one knee then just stops to hold their face, when last year they would've played the ball. 

I don't know how it works in Aus, but maybe players will be able to officially appeal for a penalty via captain's challenge if they bring it in?

I do think this has calmed down from a decade ago when this became prominent (2013 WC was horrendous for it). But I can understand how this can happen - a player is fouled, the ref misses it, and the ball carrier can legitimately halt play injured. It should be remembered that if a ref had spotted the incident in the first place, the ball carrier doesn't leap to his feet - often they will stay down or get the physio on for a head check. So what we are seeing is a fouled player being hurt. The issue is refs missing it rather than players faking it. 

I'm not sure of the solution, because ignoring fouls isn't the best way either. 

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, daz39 said:

And in the past they got up gingerly and had attention on the move, are 15-18st players hitting harder than 5 years ago now?

I agree that some do seem to 'coax' the officials into having a look, i guess no one will really know the extent of their 'injury' only them.

See my response to phiggins. In general we are talking about high tackles. When a penalty is given, they still stay down, they take treatment etc. They aren't doing anything differently here - it's the fact that the ref has missed it and not blown his whistle that is the difference. 

Hugh tackles hurt. 

Edited August 13 by Dave T

[JM2010]

I think the VR should only be used for try or no try. Everything else should be down to the ref and touch judges 

[Dave T]

It would be interesting to see some analysis here on how many times a player stays down and doesn't then get a penalty. Because if the VR is reviewing and penalising them, the issue isn't the fouled players. 

The solution lies with the tackler and the refereeing. 

People are focusing on the wrong person. 

Edited August 13 by Dave T

[Alffi 7]

In terms of foul play. If the referee hasn’t seen it, it shouldn’t be carded - deal with it at MRP. For things the referee has seen I’d implement the RU method of an initial ten minute sin bin, during which time the VR reviews and has the power to upgrade it to red. Maybe to add to this if a player feels it is a potential red card scenario and the ref has missed it, he can call for a free review by the VR, but game plays on whilst this takes place? That way you are picking up the very dangerous foul play, but not delaying the game.

 

I like the idea of a player review system for tries scored, takes it out of the referees hands and hopefully the annoying site of players appealing to the referee. The only problem with this could be players ‘using up’ appeals towards the end of the game when really, they know the outcome. A bit like players using the full ‘shot clock’ time to take a drop out, when everyone is ready to go.

[phiggins]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

See my response to phiggins. In general we are talking about high tackles. When a penalty is given, they still stay down, they take treatment etc. They aren't doing anything differently here - it's the fact that the ref has missed it and not blown his whistle that is the difference. 

Hugh tackles hurt. 

That is a good point. This does highlight how many high tackles are being missed, even without a penalty being given initially. But at the same time, I do wonder if referees are erring on the side of letting the VR pick up any bad ones now.

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It would be interesting to see some analysis here on how many times a player stays down and doesn't then get a penalty. Because if the VR is reviewing and penalising them, the issue isn't the fouled players. 

The solution lies with the tackler and the refereeing. 

People are focusing on the wrong person. 

I do think some focus should be on the wording of the protocols as well. If a player is about to make a legitimate tackle, but then the ball carrier slips at the last minute, I don't think it is right to give them 10 minutes. Similarly, if a defender is stood still at the point of contact as the ball carrier runs into the line, I don't think it's right for a ref to tell him that it is "with force" and give him 10. Not all force in collisions is generated by the defender.

I also think there is some merit in the option to upgrade a yellow to a red during the 10 minutes as well, after further review.

[DavidM]

45 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I don't know how it works in Aus,

I do . Players play the system , and often it gets rewarded . We used to have a game where we prided ourselves on getting up , now to often we have a game where pride ourselves on staying  down , are openly encouraged to stay down , or throw yourself down. We also have evolved a soccer style level of arm waving and complaining . The bunker has such a level of scrutiny and the rules are so restrictive that this is the reaction from players . It may have started of a good thing but the level of video interference has just infected the game to a level where honestly I’d happily get rid of it completely