RFL match officials admit to crucial error in Leeds Rhinos-St Helens clash

[Chrispmartha]

https://www.alloutrugbyleague.co.uk/news/rfl-match-officials-admit-crucial-1416885

[RigbyLuger]

Not sure what good comes from this at all.

[Josef K]

Replay the game NOW, this second. 

[M j M]

1 minute ago, RigbyLuger said:

Not sure what good comes from this at all.

Chris Kendall stops getting appointed to Leeds games?

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Josef K said:

Replay the game NOW, this second. 

I agree

 

In all seriousness I don't know whether this makes me feel better or worse, what I hope it does do is make them look at the process.

[WN83]

Until they can give the VR's top quality replays and numerous angles pretty much instantly, I think we'll continue to see decisions that are reasonably controversial. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, WN83 said:

Until they can give the VR's top quality replays and numerous angles pretty much instantly, I think we'll continue to see decisions that are reasonably controversial. 

The issue here though wasn't particularly the video quality - he didn't check the other angles and quickly overturned the refs call.

My only thought is maybe he thought the refs call was try?

[phiggins]

I'm not sure what the point of such a statement is. It will only annoy Leeds fans more, and probably lead to more abuse going Kendall's way. 

I've some sympathy for the Video Ref's. the first angle he looked at looked like the ball had reached the line. It was only the next angles when he was looking to make sure the ball hadn't been lost that it looked like it might ne short. So, we either have a ref changing his mind with every angle on a decision, or making a decision reasonably quickly. 

I wonder whether Saints would've challenged it if the ref had given the no try and double movement? Might be best to scrap referee referrals and just allow teams to challenge if they think a try has or hasn't been scored. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

My only thought is maybe he thought the refs call was try?

Again, this fits into what we've previously raised about communication and what they are actually saying.

[sam4731]

Its my understanding that if the VR sees enough evidence to overturn it they do. He saw enough evidence. Whether that was what someone else would have seen is irrelevant. That is what he saw.

[corvusxiii]

7 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Not sure what good comes from this at all.

On a personal level it's good for me as it confirms what I thought had happened. I couldn't believe that so many thought it was a try yet apparently I was wrong. But yes, I get your point, it's horrible!

[phiggins]

Just re-read the article, and looks like the review panel think the try should've been disallowed and Shaw has decided to run with it as a story.

I'm guessing there will be a few other decisions that the refs got wrong as they will do every week, but obviously the journalist has chosen not to run with those.

I wonder what the RFL thought of Leeds' decision to send 8 players onto Robertson at the end?

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

Its my understanding that if the VR sees enough evidence to overturn it they do. He saw enough evidence. Whether that was what someone else would have seen is irrelevant. That is what he saw.

As I say we don’t know if he made a mistake with the refs call, but reviewing it so quickly and not looking at all the angles is not good in any game let alone one of this importance.

[Josef K]

11 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I agree

 

In all seriousness I don't know whether this makes me feel better or worse, what I hope it does do is make them look at the process.

Whatever you say Chris i agree because i am still gutted as the Leeds fans. But that ship has sailed. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Just re-read the article, and looks like the review panel think the try should've been disallowed and Shaw has decided to run with it as a story.

I'm guessing there will be a few other decisions that the refs got wrong as they will do every week, but obviously the journalist has chosen not to run with those.

I wonder what the RFL thought of Leeds' decision to send 8 players onto Robertson at the end?

Referees getting decisions wrong is one thing, a video referee is another compounded by the fact he overturned it.

As I said in the match thread if a team cant defend a two point lead with 6 seconds to go they dont deserve to win

[sam4731]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

As I say we don’t know if he made a mistake with the refs call, but reviewing it so quickly and not looking at all the angles is not good in any game let alone one of this importance.

Two points. He sees what he sees. If he sees the ball on the line that has to be his decision. You can't force him into having a different view. Also, if he looked at it a thousand times, people would only complain that it was taking too long.

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

As I say we don’t know if he made a mistake with the refs call, but reviewing it so quickly and not looking at all the angles is not good in any game let alone one of this importance.

He thought he'd seen the ball grounded on the line from the first angle. Video refs are regularly criticised for over analysing calls and looking at multiple angles when they have already commented on what has happened. They can't really win can they?

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Leeds were unlucky the officials got it wrong - it happens, move on. There is a point about the VR that is important though - we go to them because they should be able to see more detailed video evidence. The cameras Sky use for SL (old Premier League ones from 15 years ago) just aren't good enough to get that vital info in many of the cases they're asked to review. Chalk and cheese with the NRL slowmo's (they use the same cameras as the PL use now). VR just isn't fit for purpose in too many situations and until Sky feel the need/want to upgrade the cameras at games this will be a problem every so often. 

[RigbyLuger]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Just re-read the article, and looks like the review panel think the try should've been disallowed and Shaw has decided to run with it as a story.

I'm guessing there will be a few other decisions that the refs got wrong as they will do every week, but obviously the journalist has chosen not to run with those.

I wonder what the RFL thought of Leeds' decision to send 8 players onto Robertson at the end?

And we know they make mistakes, because no-one is perfect! Like the match report, not by Shaw, that writes about Dwayne West scoring that other famous try,

[WN83]

10 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

The issue here though wasn't particularly the video quality - he didn't check the other angles and quickly overturned the refs call.

My only thought is maybe he thought the refs call was try?

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to how the VR's approach various incidents. I've seen them spend 5 minutes at times this season trawling over footage, when the decision in the grand scheme of things is pretty meaningless and I've seen them give really important decisions instantly, only to then find out there was possibly a better angle to look at later in the piece, once the decision has been given.

I was presuming here that better angles were not available to him, rather than him choosing not to look at them but who knows. I've also seen them look at angles, that tell them nothing, over and again, while only looking at the angle that tells them all they need to know once. 

It feels like there is a real mixture of issues, right form the quality of the replays, through to what they're either being able to look at or what they're choosing to look at. 

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, phiggins said:

He thought he'd seen the ball grounded on the line from the first angle. Video refs are regularly criticised for over analysing calls and looking at multiple angles when they have already commented on what has happened. They can't really win can they?

When you are overturning an onfield call you have to be sure - he didn't check all the angles, bearing in mind the ref was in the best position.

They can win - by getting important decisions correct.

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, WN83 said:

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to how the VR's approach various incidents. I've seen them spend 5 minutes at times this season trawling over footage, when the decision in the grand scheme of things is pretty meaningless and I've seen them give really important decisions instantly, only to then find out there was possibly a better angle to look at later in the piece, once the decision has been given.

I was presuming here that better angles were not available to him, rather than him choosing not to look at them but who knows. I've also seen them look at angles, that tell them nothing, over and again, while only looking at the angle that tells them all they need to know once. 

It feels like there is a real mixture of issues, right form the quality of the replays, through to what they're either being able to look at or what they're choosing to look at. 

The angles must have been available because they showed the better angle straight after

[bromleybulldog]

The issue really is that the images that were offered to the VR were poor quality and from a limited number of angles. As soon as the VR had made his decision, suddenly there was another angle shown on TV, much better quality and showing (imo) that the ball was grounded short and then moved forwards.. This is not a criticism of Kendall.he made a decision on what he could see- poor quality, poor angles. SKY really need to up their game and make sure all angles are offered to the VR. Or we should maybe do away with the VR if this is the best they can offer.  Leeds were the better team but if they can't defend one tackle from 40- yards out they don't deserve to win. Their players were running round like an under sevens team -- everyone towards the ball. No discipline at all.

[phiggins]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

When you are overturning an onfield call you have to be sure - he didn't check all the angles, bearing in mind the ref was in the best position.

They can win - by getting important decisions correct.

They really can't win. The only way they can is if they give all decisions in favour of both teams at once.

He'd seen an angle that he believed showed the ball grounded on the line. To be honest, I thought it had as well. Video refs get criticism for second guessing themselves, then get criticised for making a decision too quickly.

[corvusxiii]

14 minutes ago, phiggins said:

He thought he'd seen the ball grounded on the line from the first angle. Video refs are regularly criticised for over analysing calls and looking at multiple angles when they have already commented on what has happened. They can't really win can they?

Getting the decisions right would help their cause very much I think.