VR officials, has it gone to far.

[Dave T]

Just now, DavidM said:

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 

Getting a penalty because you are fouled is not a reward. 

[DavidM]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Getting a penalty because you are fouled is not a reward. 

But what kind of game do you want to watch ? We seem to want perfection but at what cost . Officials miss things . Staying down to get something checked by a video then getting up and running off , or flinging yourself down for an obstruction , isn’t really the game I want to see 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

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.

 

Yeah, there could be an element of that, and this is where unintended consequences becomes an issue. 

What I would say on all of this, is that I've probably watched more SL this year than ever due to the step up in coverage, and by and large really enjoyed it. I think we can sometimes give disproportionate focus to relatively minor annoyances. 

When a players stays down and then gets a penalty, I'm never annoyed with the ball carrier. 

[Dave T]

Just now, DavidM said:

But what kind of game do you want to watch ? We seem to want perfection but at what cost . Officials miss things . Staying down to get something checked by a video then getting up and running off , or flinging yourself down for an obstruction , isn’t really the game I want to see 

I think it's as easy to not let this bother you as it is to get worked up by it. 

My personal view is that we are broadly OK in this space. 

[DavidM]

Just now, Dave T said:

I think it's as easy to not let this bother you as it is to get worked up by it. 

My personal view is that we are broadly OK in this space. 

Indeed .  it’s an interesting and valid discussion I think a lot of people are having !

[daz39]

53 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. 

And if he misses it put it down to human error and move on, can we afford to stop the game to see if a Ref has missed something or made an error in a decison? what next, stop play at every play the ball to check it's been played correctly? we don't let players who have made errors go back and do it again so why should we slow the game down to let Ref's do it? mistakes happen, errors happen, Ref's miss things during a game let's just accept that.

[JF1]

I like the Aussie system where,if the ref thinks a try has been scored,he awards it, giving the video ref a minute or so before the goal kick to confirm or deny the try.

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, daz39 said:

And if he misses it put it down to human error and move on, can we afford to stop the game to see if a Ref has missed something or made an error in a decison? what next, stop play at every play the ball to check it's been played correctly? we don't let players who have made errors go back and do it again so why should we slow the game down to let Ref's do it? mistakes happen, errors happen, Ref's miss things during a game let's just accept that.

But that doesn't happen. 

And let's be clear here, the reason we have video refs at all in all sports is because fans, players, coaches and media won't just accept decisions and move on. They never have, they won't now. 

[daz39]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

But that doesn't happen. 

And let's be clear here, the reason we have video refs at all in all sports is because fans, players, coaches and media won't just accept decisions and move on. They never have, they won't now. 

Then tough, there's over 125 years of Newspaper reports on games that have happened with errors inwhere fans, players, coaches moved on.

We managed fine in the past.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Then tough, there's over 125 years of Newspaper reports on games that have happened with errors inwhere fans, players, coaches moved on.

We managed fine in the past.

On the above basis we don't need to change this 'issue' then. 

[JohnM]

Time was when we saw -attended- at best one game a week. Now we can see 5, 6, 7 or more games a week, with the officials performances dissected at microscopic level by commentators, pundits, posters, reporters  ... 

Kind of takes the concentration away from the actual action.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

But that doesn't happen. 

And let's be clear here, the reason we have video refs at all in all sports is because fans, players, coaches and media won't just accept decisions and move on. They never have, they won't now. 

I think reading through this thread the consensus would be if the video ref was abolished in Rugby League or used just for the scoring of a try it would be acceptable, yes we have always questioned referee decisions and we still will continue to do so no matter now many officials will be in play, you seem like a lone wolf on your discussion points Dave, even down to not accepting that there is play acting going on to gain an advantage.

[Dave T]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think reading through this thread the consensus would be if the video ref was abolished in Rugby League or used just for the scoring of a try it would be acceptable, yes we have always questioned referee decisions and we still will continue to do so no matter now many officials will be in play, you seem like a lone wolf on your discussion points Dave, even down to not accepting that there is play acting going on to gain an advantage.

On the contrary, a very small group of blokes here are moaning about the video ref.

Many will moan about the ref missing stuff if it was abolished. 

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On the contrary, a very small group of blokes here are moaning about the video ref.

Many will moan about the ref missing stuff if it was abolished. 

Yes they will, and we have had that for nigh on 130 years, so all we are doing is compounding the situation with more officials to moan about.

[Anita Bath]

Give me eric clay or fred lindop anyday over this convoluted video review system. They decided and the game went on. Not sure I am aware of any long standing injustices.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes they will, and we have had that for nigh on 130 years, so all we are doing is compounding the situation with more officials to moan about.

Whilst I agree that tweaks and improvements can be made, ultimately, when people ask for the VR to be scrapped or reduced, what they are championing is more errors. Now that may be acceptable based on maintaining the pace of the game, we do need to be clear what people are asking for.

I just don't buy for a second that people just let it go and move on. They never did, they never will. 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

just don't buy for a second that people just let it go and move on. They never did, they never will. 

This 100%. It's complete nonsense indeed it happened in games before where they weren't televised or covered by the video ref.

The problem would instead be amplified with all games televised. Criticism of the refs is already dire in our sport.

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

This 100%. It's complete nonsense indeed it happened in games before where they weren't televised or covered by the video ref.

The problem would instead be amplified with all games televised. Criticism of the refs is already dire in our sport.

Of course people will complain about decisions. People complain about VR decisions as well as on field ref decisions as it is. 

But there is a balance to be had for how much time are you willing to sacrifice to ensure greater accuracy. We're in danger of regularly going over 2 hours to complete a game, which does us no favours with regards to the attractiveness of the event or ability to secure broadcast slots.

[Harry Stottle]

56 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Of course people will complain about decisions. People complain about VR decisions as well as on field ref decisions as it is. 

But there is a balance to be had for how much time are you willing to sacrifice to ensure greater accuracy. We're in danger of regularly going over 2 hours to complete a game, which does us no favours with regards to the attractiveness of the event or ability to secure broadcast slots.

Others are just more accepting of mediocrity Higgy.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Of course people will complain about decisions. People complain about VR decisions as well as on field ref decisions as it is. 

But there is a balance to be had for how much time are you willing to sacrifice to ensure greater accuracy. We're in danger of regularly going over 2 hours to complete a game, which does us no favours with regards to the attractiveness of the event or ability to secure broadcast slots.

I agree there is a balance, and that suggests reform rather than getting rid.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

Of course people will complain about decisions. People complain about VR decisions as well as on field ref decisions as it is. 

But there is a balance to be had for how much time are you willing to sacrifice to ensure greater accuracy. We're in danger of regularly going over 2 hours to complete a game, which does us no favours with regards to the attractiveness of the event or ability to secure broadcast slots.

Are games lasting that long now? I know a few years back we were heading that way and we had a focus on tightening up timings, but I haven't really noticed the games running late regularly this year. Although that may be because we watch them at different times now so that 10pm Friday time isn't as noticeable. 

[phiggins]

44 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Are games lasting that long now? I know a few years back we were heading that way and we had a focus on tightening up timings, but I haven't really noticed the games running late regularly this year. Although that may be because we watch them at different times now so that 10pm Friday time isn't as noticeable. 

I don’t think it was much before 5 when the Leigh Hull game finished. Though to be fair, I think that partly on the officials taking an unnecessary amount of time on some try / no try calls. There was one in the first half where I don’t think Leigh even claimed a try, and all 26 players were lined up for the next play the ball long before the the VR made his call. Then the on field ref referred at least one regulation decision to the VR as well. 

[The Blues Ox]

I think players are well within their rights to stay down if they feel they have been tackled illegally and now everyone banging on about how players are staying down is just some macho BS like we are still in the 80's. As an example in the Saints V Salford game Shorrocks is tackled late in extra time and you think he has it in the back of his head if he does not get up then he is going to be called out for being weak or playing for a penalty when the harsh reality is that because he did not stay down it cost his team the game as it cost Salford what was a very clear cut penalty and probably in Sneyd's kicking range or at the very least would have had them the first chance at a drop goal.

Personally Ive no problem with the VR ref been used to get to the right decision but as we have seen a lot lately they are getting it very wrong at too high a rate.

Edited August 14 by The Blues Ox

[Hopie]

I want all foul play to be penalised, so there is a difficult balance to be found, but it doesn't sit right with me that players effectively have the power to stop the game. We have clearly got to the point where the rules encourage players to stay down if they think they got any illegal contact. It will be checked if you stay down, but if you play the ball it won't be. The frequency of cards this year adds a premium to that encouragement too. 

I feel referees at the moment (some more than others) seem to have the attitude where they try "not to get involved" unless they have to, or the decision is easy on them. So they do let a lot of high tackles get decided by the video, as they do with try decisions. Although, given some of the explanations they give on the ref mic, its clear come of them do need that help!

[JohnM]

I think claims such as ,"they are getting it very wrong at too high a rate" strikes at the heart of the matter, since in my view it misunderstands who is the arbiter. 

Many's the time at Central Park when I've joined in the shouting of "forward" "offside" and other words, where the ref has (according to the crowd) clearly got it wrong, only to find when watching the home recording the following day to see the ref was clearly right. 

How things have changed. Now, fans  carry their instant reaction over into interminable arguments on "social meda" with renewed intensity and an unwillingness to accept that their own errors.

Sure, the video ref system can be improved: slicker, quicker, maybe used more sparingly etc. but it's now part of the game. 

Edited August 14 by JohnM