It seems that the video referee’s box possesses mysterious mind-altering powers. While not an ever-present force, it does have the unsettling effect of an unannounced visit from the in-laws when it strikes.
It has the ability to jam a rugby league referee’s abilities of comprehension by short-circuiting their database of visual image identification.
Everybody from the sharpest scientists down to dim-witted footyheads have tried in vain to determine the point on the journey from the adjudicator’s eye-ball up to their decision gland that the images seem to magically alter.
So far, nobody has been able to define or cure this intermittent muddling of conception.
This box and its intangible spirit of disorder affects the upstanding and reliable citizens of league administration who have been empowered with the simpler aspect of league decision making. Even the most basic impression or appearance can be skewed.
At half time, when one of the assistants brings the video referee a beverage, he tries to eat it like a pie.
He tries to put trash into his chair and drive his desk home. Then when he gets lost, he picks up his road map and sees the Mona Lisa.
He kisses his pet dog when he gets home and then goes to sleep in his swimming pool.
These are on the milder side of its capabilities. When it strikes without warning at the most inopportune times is when it’s dream-shattering powers are at their most devastating.
On Wednesday night at Etihad Stadium, the ghosts returned. Not satisfied with a game already jam packed with contents resembling a bulging variety bag on a violent see-saw, they flashed their eternal season tickets and appeared in the box with seven minutes to go.
The victim this time around was Sean Hampstead.
Greg Inglis had the ball in his mitts and was ready to plant it over the line before it jiggled and then met the boot of Robbie Farah. From there, the ball spilled loose and hit the turf for what appeared a garden variety rugby league knock-on.
Hampstead took a few steady-paced glances at first by running through the footage at normal time and checking the different angles at his disposal. Each vision showed him a bobbling pigskin with no hint of control or fastening to the hand.
Then the replays became slower. And more frequent.
It was at this point you sensed the influence of the box spectre taking over.
The images being transported from the peepers of Hampstead as a fumble had arrived at his processor with a non-conforming description.
What followed was real downward pressure. The index finger of Hampstead onto the green button.
TRY!
And the wailing hasn’t ceased since.
Let’s get serious. The Inglis try may or may not have won the game for Queensland, lost it for NSW or had any bearing on the outcome whatsoever. Remember, it could’ve finished at 12-10 with the Maroons in front.
But what this incident highlights is the video referee’s habit to search for a minute technicality to either grant or disallow a try against the grain when the obvious answer is staring them right in the face.
In real time, there is no doubt that the faux try was a clear as day, run of the mill, textbook standard grassing of the ball from schoolboy to senior level every day of the week.
To the man in the box: sin bin the spectre, quell the mystery and use some common sense.
Dan the 1st
Guest
The referee made the wrong decision to rule Farah "kicked the ball out", damn you! Farah does put his foot in the vicinity of the ball but it is on the ground when Inglis brings it down onto Farah's shin. That alone warrants a knock on call against Inglis. Then it's argued that Inglis "wasn't playing at the ball" when it bounces off his forearm and hand and goes forward again!?!? There isn't, wasn't and never will be a human being that can think that fast that they go from playing at the ball (attempted grounding onto Farah's leg) not playing at it (losing it) to playing at it again (final grounding) in a matter of 1-2 seconds. Okay so now I've covered the two critical points, however there is a third and rarely mentioned. That being the huge question mark over the initial "attempt" at a "bat back" by Slater. You will see he gets the ball in mid air. So he has no choice in which direction he travels due to his momentum and the fact he is in mid air. So taking that into consideration you can say that in order to for the ball to go in the other direction he would have had to throw the ball again his momentum. Now we know how hard it is to throw a "flat" inside pass let alone one that goes backwards due to the same principles as when you are in mid air, it's always harder to go against the grain so to speak. More than likely through experience than anything else, Billy realises this and simply lets go of the ball. This would mean that the ball would have carried some of the "forward" momentum from Billy, even if only slightly, but still forward. The only way you could definitively say that it didn't travel forward was to have a all but perfect side view showing a fixed point and the point where billy lets it go and where it lands in relation to those points. Otherwise the laws of nature apply and it can only be a knock on (Although I will admit Slater is a bit of a freak) The interesting illusion also is that when the ball hits the ground it lands "on its flat" and actually bounces slightly back before Inglis grabs it. Point is, if Hampstead was going to disallow the try he could have pulled it up at that point but it was never going to happen. As Dane25 intimated, the data has been corrupted somewhere within the matrix interface of the Video Ref's box. Where knock-on is translated into try!
turbodewd
Guest
Agreed. Make decision first and only overturn if its clearly wrong.
Gareth
Guest
Unlike the on-field officials, the video ref doesn't have the luxury of ruling anything within the "spirit of the game". A couple of years back, Parramatta's Ben Smith had a complete air swing when trying to catch a pass, yet the ball hit him squarely on the chest, bounced through the defenders, over the try line, and he grounded it. By the letter of the law, it was a fair try. He never knocked it on, he didn't deliberate propel the ball forward, so it was awarded. Was it in the spirit of the game? Not really. He made a complete meal of it and in general play it would have been called a knock on. Same deal here. The referee made the correct decision to rule that Robbie Farah kicked the ball out, advantage was played and Inglis grounded the ball. Is it in the spirit of the game? Probably not. But it's like any other sloppy try that gets awarded on a technicality. If the video ref ignored those technicalities and ruled with his gut, we'd ask why we even bother with a video ref.
Fivehole
Guest
I like the idea. Except i'd prefer to have 2 incorrect challenges allowed per side per game. If you challenge and the decision is overturned, you don't lose the ability to challenge again until you have 2 decisions not overturned. Pretty clunky description by me, but you know what i mean
Gr8trWeStr
Guest
I think the key to getting more consistent video review decisions is for the on field officials to give their decision. That on field decision then becomes the basis of any review and only if that decision is shown to be clearly wrong is it overturned.
turbodewd
Guest
I think the NRL should adopt the NFL style of replay - it makes 10 times more sense to me. Here's how it works: 1. Referee makes ruling. 2. Opposing team can throw a flag to challenge a ruling. (Maybe NRL has a 30 second window after a try to appeal it) 3. Video ref ONLY overrules original ruling if there is CLEAR visual evidence to do so. Give him only 1 minute to look at the footage. 4. Teams get 2 challenges per game, if both go in their favor they get a 3rd. This would discourage frivolous challenges.