“(…but)If Ray Warren thinks he can do a better job, I’d like to see him get down onto the field so he can not only stop his incredulous reaction, but also show us all how its done.”
I am far more rational usually than the above comment which I blurted out during the coverage.
It was a great game, thoroughly enjoyed it, not the commentary though.
I also liked the pre match entertainment and the presentation at the end. Well done!
The refs. It occurred to me during the broadcast that we are being fed skepticism in droves.
The game is too fast for the guys in the middle. It’s not so much the interpretation thats the problem, we can all accept a call to a point – its the backlash of uncertainty and the inability to remove the seamless nature of the eventual correction of the play.
Sometimes the refs can’t make the call or miss a call, or perhaps get it wrong. Now this also ties into commentary.
They are absolutely atrocious at inspiring confidence – instead they seek to dismantle trust openly possibly to make in their mind, the calling of the game seem better.
It’s directly a result of the ref’s call.
Rugby league may thrive on controversy. But again, only up to a point.
It’s occurred to me that the video ref (or a future iteration of him) needs to assist the on-field ref nearly at all times.
There was the ball-stripping incident, the forward pass, a host of other little things which would have benefited from upstairs assistance.
Now, I personally can watch a game and say to myself the guy in the middle is but one person, sometimes as humans we don’t get the full picture – and I am usually ok with that, I take it as it comes.
It won’t make a bad or missed call go away, but it helps to sooth my spirit.
But I am not everyone.
It bothers me that the commentators are in general overly negative and seek to point out every little incident and harp on about it.
It’s tarnishing the enthusiasm and excitement the game itself is generating.
Also this is increasing the skepticism toward the game.
Not only would I like them just to stick to commentating without feeling the need to inflict upon us their own personal, negative impressions, I also see the case to make the video ref become a full-time assistant ref.
We don’t want commentators ignore issues frequently, because that would involve a lack of integrity which I am sternly against.
On the other hand no one needs them incessantly pointing it out.
We should both tone down the commentators and lift the standard of referees who do pretty well considering.
An example at the penalty try. The entire conversation about it was plain odd.
Wally Lewis topped off the commentators general gist succinctly in a bizarely both-ways comment, saying “It was 99.99 percent sure to be a try – but they simply don’t know if that would have been.”
Which leads us to think – in what reality is that not seen as a try according to the comment?
Is this man (and I like Wally a lot) trying to harm people’s impressions?
It’s not enough there was a lot of uncertainty over the decision, but I felt the anticipation was good enough without having to negatively reflect on it so much.
His comment just shows to me how /even though/ something is almost dead certain – the culture to question the officials and represent everything as sensational and with conjecture, has gone too far.
We don’t need polarising moments like this.
If the video ref was a full-time assistant ref, it would remove such undesirable comments and reduce the doubt.
The refs are overstretched since the game is so fast now.
It’s a marvel they do as well as they do. I personally do not see the need for total perfection, but understand the idea of ‘getting it right’, especially when points or the entire NRL Premiership is on the line.
How would this work?
Well it would not work on a basis of constantly ‘overturning’ decisions the on-field ref makes.
1. The ref could be assisted during play, he could provide the video ref matters of attention in a specified order if he wanted to, and/or allow the video ref to be largely autonomous, depending on the situation.
2. They would function as a team, and the second on-field ref could also be involved, maybe in a more limited capacity [in regards to the video ref].
3. The goal would be two-fold: A) remove delays in decisions at try-time and B) Other times by having the relevant ‘question’ about some particular aspect of play ‘ready’ to be delivered at the time the on-field ref needs it.
4. There would be some flexibility. Since the video ref is assisting during running play, he could be kept busy with such ‘call-requests’ as the on-field ref needs.
5. It could happen relatively seamlessly and out of sight so to the viewer the on-field ref is the source of the call – but the fact he is being assisted is not a secret.
Take the ‘is it a strip’ incident involving I think Jamie Lyon, could be wrong, it’s late.
It happened and play had to stop anyway, so the video ref could have already looked at it twice – so in this case both refs would have seen it (all told three times it was viewed).
Grossly forward passes should reviewed, even as play continues.
We all know about video these days – we all look at it a lot.
It’s everywhere. They said the video ref can’t call on forward passes, well I always thought he could.
It’s just a measurement in relation to the camera, that is adjusted for the gap in depth-perception.
It would end up being a certain angle on the video screen. However, more narrower forward passes may miss out on scrutiny.
Undiscovered knock-ons by the on-field ref could be covered as well.
Reducing criticism is an aim.
But on a larger scale and across more areas, removing skepticism (a natural human default state) is the main driver here.
I think it’s time we re-visited look at assisting the on-field ref with video.
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.
Penrith have won plenty of games under Ivan Cleary, but few can have seen them have to grit it out as much as this…
Fans and pundits were concerned the subjective nature of the 'disruptor' rule would create inconsistencies. Fox League's Corey Parker thought this was a clear-cut…
The Cowboys made a second-half fightback against the reigning premiers - and it all started with a try to Valentine Holmes that came off…
Penrith had to make over 200 tackles in the first half and still led the Cowboys 18-4. Paul Alamoti galloped away for an intercept…
The Cowboys had all the territory but the Penrith defence stood firm. Dylan Edwards was doing everything for the Panthers, making a try-saving tackle…
Reece Walsh was in the wars against the Tigers. The star fullback was throwing up on the field but couldn't flag down a trainer.
