Comments on: Chris Pollock – awful TMO performance

By: Guy_Chev

Guy_Chev — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:03:49 +0000

I saw that one too… Just as bad a decision. There’s already an article on that.
But I agree, it was bad.

By: Choppy

Choppy — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:59:08 +0000

You obviously didn’t see the NRL equivalent in the Dragons v Bulldogs game. That was the most disgraceful decision I’ve ever seen, worse than the Crusaders in my opinion.

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:27:36 +0000

Yeah you’re all right. Lets just scrap the whole thing. That’ll solve our problems!

By: sheek

sheek — Sun, 17 May 2009 12:21:47 +0000

It’s like the story of 20 people witnessing a motor vehicle accident, & each giving a different version depending on their location, line of sight, perception, life experience, prejudices, culture, etc.

Amazing we can all see the same thing, but some can come up with other interpretations. Just goes to show that having more officials assist with the adjudicating, doesn’t necessarily help.

More is not always better.

By: zzzz

zzzz — Sun, 17 May 2009 11:37:43 +0000

My hunch is that Pollock was well aware of last years’ Crusaders-Blues Tuituvake TMO no-try fiasco, and was going in to bat for the overall historical impartiality of the TMO system. A noble cause no doubt, but the prevailing ethic is to “play whats in front of you” and let bygones be bygones. It’s a tribute to the Crusaders’ grit that their response was to press on regardless.
I would have thought that when it comes to refereeing, consistency is king – in which case Pollock committed the original sin and should be evicted from the garden of Eden Park. More importantly, do we want officials with the power to destroy a game or tournament in a whim, in opposition to agreed-upon common sense?
Why can’t you simply watch a ballgame in the 21st century without being dragged into the politics and economics of it all.
I’ll say it again – zzzz.

By: Ell

Ell — Sun, 17 May 2009 09:38:49 +0000

Absolutely agree. Lawrence was clearly unconvinced by the decision of Pollock for Paterson’s try, but unfortunately could not over-ride him. The ref’s call should be used in union, the sooner the better. Asking the TMO if there is any reason “why the try could not be awarded” IS a step in the right direction, but not far enough.

Kaplan got fairly snappy with his TMO in the game following too

By: Spiro Zavos

Spiro Zavos — Sun, 17 May 2009 07:44:14 +0000

I agree with this. I couldn’t understand either decision. The first ‘no-try’ decision when it was clearly a try could have put the Crusaders out of the finals, especially when the Blues were awarded a try that should have been, in my opinion, a ‘no-try’ ruling. It was clear that Bryce Lawrence the referee was bemused by both rulings and seemed to want to award the Crusaders their try which might have opened the floodgates against the Blues.
What happens to video referees when they are given over-riding power?
In cricket we had video umpires over-turning umpires LBW decisions, not on matters of fact (which is fine) but on matters of judgement, whether a ball might have carried on and kept low enough to hit the stumps and so on.
And now over a weekend we have had a rugby league video referee make a howler and a rugby union referee make two howlers.