Question for any Referees : Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:56 am  

In last nights game the Charnley try/no try. Dwyer stole the ball in a three man tackle over the try line. Had the try not been given what would the decision have been regarding restarting the game?

Re: Question for Grimmy : Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:13 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

In last nights game the Charnley try/no try. Dwyer stole the ball in a three man tackle over the try line. Had the try not been given what would the decision have been regarding restarting the game?

Not Grimmy obviously but I was under the impression you could steal the ball if it was in the act of preventing a try.

I’m sure this was a rule but with so many of these minor rules it may have changed.

If though it is still the case it’s play on with Dwyer then getting bundled into touch so if all the above is accurate, which I’m not certain it is restart would have been play the ball to Wire .

Re: Question for Grimmy : Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:22 am  

jonh wrote:

Not Grimmy obviously but I was under the impression you could steal the ball if it was in the act of preventing a try.

I’m sure this was a rule but with so many of these minor rules it may have changed.

If though it is still the case it’s play on with Dwyer then getting bundled into touch so if all the above is accurate, which I’m not certain it is restart would have been play the ball to Wire .

Re: Question for any Referees : Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:34 pm  

What a shocker of a decision that was. They found an angle that proved it wasn’t a try, viewed it in full speed once and moved back to the angles that proved absolutely nothing. No excuses for whoever got that wrong. People mentioned the fact the ref sent it up as a try had prejudiced the decision because they need to find concrete proof it wasn’t a try. They found it and ignored it.

Re: Question for any Referees : Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:50 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

What a shocker of a decision that was. They found an angle that proved it wasn’t a try, viewed it in full speed once and moved back to the angles that proved absolutely nothing. No excuses for whoever got that wrong. People mentioned the fact the ref sent it up as a try had prejudiced the decision because they need to find concrete proof it wasn’t a try. They found it and ignored it.

And people wonder why so many of us are dubious about our officials.

Are they bent, plain incompetent, or both?

There are so many decisions like this in so many games that you want to rip your hair out.

Especially in an age when they have loads of technical assistance.

To be honest, letters of apology to the clubs concerned is just not punishment enough. Hicks has made two crucial high-profile errors in the last two games. He either needs to be retrained or to find another job.

Re: Question for any Referees : Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:13 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

And people wonder why so many of us are dubious about our officials.

Are they bent, plain incompetent, or both?

There are so many decisions like this in so many games that you want to rip your hair out.

Especially in an age when they have loads of technical assistance.

To be honest, letters of apology to the clubs concerned is just not punishment enough. Hicks has made two crucial high-profile errors in the last two games. He either needs to be retrained or to find another job.

Spot on, but don't expect much support from the wider RL fan base. As long as if doesn't happen to them, it's all 'part of the game'. You still get the idiots saying that a team makes more errors than the ref - that's not really hard is it. 34 players will obviously make more mistakes than one. It's just that one has the ability to really f-up a match.

Hicks and the rest of the refs are a cancer in the game, one more subtle than the concussion issue but no less dangerous to the future of the sport.

Re: Question for any Referees : Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:40 pm  

sergeant pepper wrote:

Hicks and the rest of the refs are a cancer in the game.

I seriously don't know what your problem is. Does someone call you a cancer if your work colleague gets something wrong? The offer still stands that I will gladly pay for your course and kit so you can show us all how games should be officiated. Alternatively you can sit behind your keyboard and continue to slate the people who have the courage to take all the weekly abuse so that we can all enjoy what is (IMO) the greatest game in the world.

Re: Question for any Referees : Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:09 pm  

For me the on field call of try or no try is promoting too many reasons for the video ref to not overrule the decision.

Hicks last night took the call from the touch judge.

You can here him say it when the Leeds players complained about it being sent up as a try.

If the refs can’t see what has gone on, which is sometimes the case due to bodies around the ball particularly in tries from close range I would like the third option of the refs being able to send it up asking quite simply “is there any reason not to award the try?”

We don’t want to slow the game down too much however calls like that where the ref is clearly unsighted he need to be able to ask for more help to get what could turn out to be a crucial call right.

Re: Question for any Referees : Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:11 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

I seriously don't know what your problem is. Does someone call you a cancer if your work colleague gets something wrong? The offer still stands that I will gladly pay for your course and kit so you can show us all how games should be officiated. Alternatively you can sit behind your keyboard and continue to slate the people who have the courage to take all the weekly abuse so that we can all enjoy what is (IMO) the greatest game in the world.

My problem are the refs and support/protection that they get. They don't change, they don't apologise and after that they have a terrible arrogant attitude. Something you won't acknowledge is there. Again, and you'll ignore this, why did Gale have to tell Child's that he's not too important to talk too?

We've already been through this too - it's not courage at all, it's stupidity/arrogance to think they can do it. I don't want to be a ref, simply because I have no place being one. I'm not an ex-pro and have no business telling people levels above me what they are doing wrong. Penalising people for retaliation when they get punched in the face, knowing full well I couldn't exercise that level of self control. It's hypocrisy.

There's a difference between getting something wrong and constantly getting stuff wrong & whilst they wouldn't call me a cancer, I'd be sacked if I was as bad as Hicks. If I dropped such a public bo11ock as he did in the CC final, refused to take responsibility and then kept making the same mistake - I'd be looking for a new job. Not sure why that's so hard to understand?

Re: Question for any Referees : Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:52 pm  

sergeant pepper wrote:

My problem are the refs and support/protection that they get. They don't change, they don't apologise and after that they have a terrible arrogant attitude. Something you won't acknowledge is there. Again, and you'll ignore this, why did Gale have to tell Child's that he's not too important to talk too?

We've already been through this too - it's not courage at all, it's stupidity/arrogance to think they can do it. I don't want to be a ref, simply because I have no place being one. I'm not an ex-pro and have no business telling people levels above me what they are doing wrong. Penalising people for retaliation when they get punched in the face, knowing full well I couldn't exercise that level of self control. It's hypocrisy.

There's a difference between getting something wrong and constantly getting stuff wrong & whilst they wouldn't call me a cancer, I'd be sacked if I was as bad as Hicks. If I dropped such a public bo11ock as he did in the CC final, refused to take responsibility and then kept making the same mistake - I'd be looking for a new job. Not sure why that's so hard to understand?

I've not seen the Gale/Child incident so can't comment. Can you not see that it's a bit hurtful calling a whole group of people (99.999% of which weren't involved in that decision) a cancer? Match officials get into it because they are passionate about rugby league, none of them want to spoil the game.

Protection - Bullock is clearly dropped by Lam and none of us really know why because we don't need to. Lam isn't going to go to the papers and say he has done X Y and Z. The RFL deal with things in a similar manner, officials are dropped and promoted every week based on performance following in depth video review of every call from every level of the pro and semi pro game.

I don't know where you think all these ex-pros are who you think are willing/able to referee top level rugby games. A well respected ex-Wigan player who is still involved with the club did meet with the RFL about becoming match official about three years ago. He found out the (lack of) money involved compared with the work required and quickly declined. Another couldn't pass the fitness test and jacked in after a few kids games. Maybe we should just play without officials and let the players sort it out until all these ex-pros who are happy to take all this abuse for peanuts make themselves known. That's besides the obvious point that a 34 year old who has spent 20 years playing rugby might not be as good an official as a 34 year old who has spent 20 years officiating rugby. I do think we need to try to attract ex-pros FWIW, but you're dreaming if you think many will want to do it unless we miraculously find a lot of money to pay them.