Don't read threads entitled " New season Same old crappy refing " then and save yourself untold grief.

I agree, they have 5 people commentating on the game, the 2 main commentators don't know the most basic rules and the only person whom offers any analysis of the play (Carney) is drowned out because Cummins his having to explain every single decision. I actually find it very patronising as a viewer.

I'd find another guy to do the Eddie role (ie commentating on the game), have Carney as the summariser giving a bit of insight on the game, and Jon Wells doing the stats and analysis with the screen. Bill Arthur is fine doing his injury updates and dressing room stuff. The rest need binning asap.

You couldn't really fault Ganson in all truth. What did you make of Bentham?

From someone at the game, we assumed Swift was in touch but then Sky went on and on repeatedly showing it. Did he have a foot in touch or not???

Borderline.......it was 50/50 and personally id have been happy to see it given.

Looked as though his foot was on the line when going for the ball, as he made a dive to contact the ball his foot was in mid air over the line, what happened to benefit of the doubt tries.

Betham did better than Child but I think he went a bit crazy in the 10mins before half time. He got a bit carried away. Teams are never all onside on the line. He never gave it after that point when both us and Catalan were doing it second half!

My original post was aimed at the video ref, all be it a knee jerk reaction to an awfull decision. Bethan was right for the sin bin and should/could of used it earlier saints where proper taking the michael there. Grammar nazis feel free to point out any grammatical errors.

Having watched that no try several times now, the conclusion I've drawn is that Percival catches the ball, Taia then pulls at Percival's arms which forces the knock on. I can only guess this sis the version of events that was ruled as I can't see any other way the decision given was made.

It was probably harsh, but I thought Swift was harshly done too (both the video ref decision and the in touch decision) so it evened itself out.

I thought Bentham did OK - but I agree that the Sky team look for controversy, even when there isn't much. For the 'in touch' no try, the first camera angle seemed to clearly indicate that the foot hit the line and the TJ's flag went straight up. They showed this only a couple of times at most, they then found another angle in which it didn't look so clear and showed that a few more times. Correct decision from the TJ for me, but the Sky team seem to have a directive to pick any holes at all in every single decision.

And the video ref is now stuck with a rule which actually seemed like a good idea at the time, but now I'm not so sure. I'm convinced that the Catalan no try (tackled in the air) would have been given under last years rules where the ref just sent it upstairs and they had to sort it out - now they have to find 100% clear cut evidence the ref was wrong, we are going to get more of what we got last night, the evidence will often not be 100% clear, so they have to go with the ref. How many decisions are 100% clear in a game anyway?

I'm not going to comment on Childs performance as I obviously have a major bias there, but Bentham did pretty well last night, so I don't think we can say 'same crappy reffing' at all. New rules always need time to get used to - but nice to see two games with zero obstruction calls*, so maybe last years clampdown is now working!

*I did get a bit bored during the Saints game and even flicked to 6 nations a few times, so I may have missed one...

Ok, it's should have, not should of.

The potential issues that were raised when the new VR system was announced seem to be coming to fruition. Forcing the ref to guess does not make it any likelier that we will get a correct decision. Quite the opposite, and this goes against the whole purpose of the VR, which is to improve decision making.

In last night's game two "no try" calls were upheld by the VR because they could not "conclusively prove" he was wrong. However, if there isn't any proof in the first place that the ref was right then the system breaks down. If there is no evidence of a knock on or anything else that disproves the try then the try should stand rather than reverting back to the referee's guess.

And speaking of last night's game, they're a bunch of niggling cheaters Saints aren't they? Cunningham clearly coaches them to do it!

I can see what you mean but, a lot of the Saints players were almost in front of the play of the ball at times, it was ridiculous.

Things like penalising the blind side when Catalans went open was pedantic though, and as said if that happened every time, we'd still be going.

Anyway, sounds a LOT of penalties in the Salford vs Warrington match (following it on Twitter) as well, including a sin binning, so it looks like it's this years riffing fad ...

That is illogical. Unless a VR is present the referee simply [iMUST[/i make a decision, with only the other on-field officials for assistance. What do you think the ref would do if there was no VR? Shrug his shoulders and say, "Fook me, I have no clue what that was", and halt the game?

In fact, the referee's job is, several thousand times a game, to make decisions. About everything. Every little thing. Making a decision is basing your decision on what you see and what you know. He isn't "guessing". He is simply saying "IF I WAS REFFING THIS GAME WITH NO VR, THEN I COULD NOT GIVE A TRY, BASED ON WHAT I SAW".

The new arrangement sensibly has it that, if the VR actually does see something which shows the try WAS scored then the VR awards the try. I know the hysterical Sky team like to say this is "overruling" the ref, but if you understand the process, it actually isn't. It is making a more informed decision armed with more complete information.

Of course it also does cover any case if a ref really did "guess" at a decision" but I don't see how that affects things, as no ref's call will be "overturned" unless it's clear it wouldn't be the right call.


No! If on video review there is no reason to say the ref was wrong, then why the hell should his judgement call not stand? There isn't and never has been any requirement that a ref must "have proof" that each and every ecision is conclusively correct with zero doubt. It has always been the case that the ref makes a call on what he sees and that is very often not much.


Once again, the ref is not "guessing". In this situation he is usually saying
"If there was no VR then I would award/not award that "try". As it is my job to make a decision. But I have doubts, and so given there IS a VR, I am asking them to have a closer look".


Indeed!

I like the 'NRL' system they're using now. Refs need to take responsibility. And, as noted, it sits better with the comparison with games where no video ref is available.

The new VR process is a joke, if the referee isn't sure he shouldn't just be made to guess just beacause they do it in the NRL.

We have already seen some strange VR decisions and we have only had 2 TV games

The current crop of refs may have their critics but surely one thing you can't accuse them of is not taking responsibility? I mean, the odd televised game apart, what have they been doing as professional referees week in week out for many years? None of them seem that shy to me

At a non televised game it is necessary for the ref to make the call one way or the other. At a televised game it isn't necessary, so it is without a doubt illogical to force him to do so. Sure, there will be times when he has little doubt, and I'm all for communication between the on field and off field officials to state their perception and surety of a call and thus improve decision making, but there will also be times when he genuinely doesn't know and will be forced to make a call for no other reason than" that's what he'd have to do if the VR wasn't here."

Say what you like about Bentham, he deserves a lot of credit for querying the quality of Greg Bird's moustache during the Four Nations Final!

Nope. He's a ref. Making calls is what he does. There's no "forcing" involved. He's the man in charge and his call is law. All he is now doing is announcing what his call is, just like he otherwise would, but allowing a review of his decision if he thinks there is sufficient doubt that he'd like it re-assessed with the benefit of video replays.

I think cases where the ref "genuinely doesn't know" (and nor do his assistants) would be rare indeed but in those circumstances he doesn't go home, scratching his arrse, he decides "no try". I don't know why you can't get your head around that simple point.

How did sport (and we aren't the only ones especially when you think of the DRS system in cricket) ever survive make it to the 21st century before technology came along to aid officials?

Especially baffling when the same officals manage to cope ok when Sky cameras aren't there.

I'd hazard a guess that TV coverage might have played a part

I thinks perhaps that you need to "get your head around" the fact that not everybody has the same opinion.



The new system is [iunnecessarily[/i restrictive. At a non-televised game (which you seem to think should provide the basis for how the referee conducts himself) he has no choice but to make a call regardless of how much doubt he has because he simply does not have the benefit of the VR. At a televised game he does, making it fatuous to use "what would he do if the VR wasn't there" as a basis for his available actions.