“(…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.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
did not include this other levelling thought: its not an excuse so much as its a call for sanity. that other sports, from baseball, to NFL, to hockey, and basketball, ALL have issues with officiating as well. we are not a sport in isolation with this issue. every sport has this kind of niggle. tennis, another one. soccer. it just makes all the hopplah of crying foul in the nrl, and via comments in the media and population, about bad calls. thats normal to an extent, but to suggest RL is somehow magnificently deficient in calling, like whats the general consensus atm, is completely wrong. And if you know better, its amoral. If you consider the measures I have looked at, it may improve it enough for everyone. I know I'd be more inclined to get into reffing (tho I am not) if I knew I had possibly the worlds best backup system.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
Another thought: a guy like Ray warren, phil gould. top people they come across as. but if you are in the com-box and someone inadvertently brings up a discussion of this nature, the natural thing to do is to discuss it. could be another reason. Andrew, like I said before, I think the refs are at a massive disadvantage not being able to have tv-hawk-eyes like all the viewers at home. They are already at a massive disadvantage to start with. To my thinking - the net result should be no different (even with all the tech) to a fan who used to sit in the stands in the 50s and 60s, or before live tv. Sitting in the stands then, yeah you see a call, but you dont dwell on it. Sometimes the scrutiny of tv is not the best thing to have. So this would be bringing at least everyone up to a standard. The poor old ref in the middle, is left out. Yes he does have a video ref - but after the fact. Linesmen are ok, but they don't have pin-point, up close, action-fixed eyes, no where near the capabilities of a tv camera for resolution - and by extension the fans. I once suggested on the roar a few months back in a comment the need for "refs to be able to speak to the crowd" in regards to reducing skepticism organically . AND this is what this is about: reducing skepticism organically. Ray warren, sterling, gould, filter, johns, should be able to talk on the one hand, and the refs should be able to have the capabilities of everyone else. But neither for neutralities sake, and the games, should we dwell too much, too often on the poorer calls.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
maybe you have something in that. watching soccer in the 90s, dont get much of a chance these days, the caller(s) was always neutral, explicitly so. He would go further with comments and say "Oh dear! That looked like a handball!" and would move on with the call. I guess not dwelling on it makes a massive difference.
Andrew
Guest
On that side Von I don't know that it will help reduce criticism by adding ore eyes to the video etc. No matter how many people are watching/reviewing some decisions will always come down to a judgement call - not thinking something like a forward pass, more something like the Easts guy who put the ball on Ballin's foot and got pinged for a drop - no matter which way you go with that (penalty to Easts or scrum to Manly) a fair chunk of people will wish it went the other way, and with someone always ready to call it into question they will end up bitter and complaining. Look at the changes to the video ref over the years, or cricket with the DRS - these things don't reduce the amount of controversy, they just move it to different things. It's not the decisions, it's the reaction to them that needs to change.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
haha I think so too
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
I must say that the article was written from a desire to give the refs the advantage we all have. The optimal thing would be to have the video refs watching play concurrently and advising the ref on the feild; and also a return line from the on field ref to the video refs, so the on field ref (still the main ref) can provide a list of things he is interested in examining as play goes on. The on field ref would be the director. The video ref his auxiliaries. I think if the video refs (2 in total) were employed in a 'dual-core' system, play could continue at all times without needing to stop for video ref-input. So if one ref had been directed to look at a certain thing, the other can still focus on current play. In that case, the video refs would direct themselves where the video is concerned. There would be one senior rank and one junior. They would direct themselves in this regard so the on field ref does not have to worry about it. He would tell his partner to keep viewing action while he quickly checked the issue. And then when done, he would pick up the 'live' stream again. This should not be hard to implement in this day and age. We can watch 'live-streams' on youtube and do the same thing, for instance. I can watch 2 amateurs on youtube doing a Linux show in America from my home in Australia. Live. (They set up their studio and run the show from the basement of the house, all the equipment is free - linux free, software all open source and free, basic video camera - and its in HD!!!! They have a control box where he can change video camera's and angles, and they have a blue-screen that they can show video's on from the webpages they are looking at, with them superimposed at the bottom of it. ) Makes a mockery of the tv industry in general, really.... So the NRL could set this up for relatively cheap. To have 2 video refs in the box should not be hard either - they can even be down on the sidelines. I took this idea from current technology I have been using. It also has its genesis in the entire "central control room" scenario raised a while back which I think was supposed to employ a standard across refereeing. Its main benefit would be intangible largely, though we can see specific instances where it would be of prime benefit. The main desire is to provide our on field refs with the luxury we all have in the living room. Over the years, the standard of accuracy has gone up and up while the level of forgiveness has gone down and down. The cost of making a wrong call now is greater than ever. And its not that I think the refs are hopeless or anything, I think they have an unfair disadvantage. ___ See, at home we all think we are experts, and it would be super easy "if I were the ref - I would have spotted that!" kind of thinking. And the commentators think they are experts at reffing, ect. Adding to their critical natures. BUT the man in the middle- he is constantly under pressure and must keep his wits, AND he doesn't have a video help like we all do.
Don
Roar Rookie
Well said. Too many agendas and bias's in the CH9 commentary. CH9 really are a dumb business. Considering they have outlaid a fortune for the League (product) broadcast rights they should also want the game to be healthy, seen positively and help in growing it's fan base. But, despite their investment in League (the product) they allow their commentators to deride referees, criticise NRL management decisions and erode consumers (fans) confidence in the product that CH9 have paid so much for. They are a key reason fans are turning away from the product they are also trying to sell to us - amazing really. When the NRL sits down with CH9 for their end of season review and CH9 attempts to put pressure on by using the decline in ratings as some type of bargaining chip to get more concessions (read, further control) because of a perceived lack of popularity. Dave Smith should play a showreel of highlights showing all the negative and detrimental garbage the commentators are allowed to spruik and the annoying cross promotions they interrupt broadcasts with. This is what is killing the ratings. Oh. and throw in little Tom Waterhouse as well. Then the NRL should tell CH9 to get their own house in order before they start slinging garbage elsewhere...Thanks for your input Gyngel, now give us our cheque and get lost...
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
do you think video refs concurrently (by which I mean you don't stop play) reffing would help?
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
I will soon be joining you in turning the sound down. Good were the days of foxtel when you could just switch the crowd on.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
2 of my main themes in the first 2 comments. cool. I like the commentators, but I cringe when Ray is there highlighting the fact the DT said "empty" seats, and then he calls out the refs every chance he gets. The skeptisism of the game is highly uncalled for. Ray could think a number of more conservative and helpful ways regarding refs. I think in pandering to emotional fans they have gone too far. I remember watching soccer in the 90s, and if there was a contentious handball the commentator would say invariably something along the lines of "I thought I saw a handball in there - oh looks like the official has missed it - I could be wrong" and he continues calling the play. They never bother to show endless replays of the incident to affirm the commentators (albeit neutral stance) And thats all I would ask of the ch9 team. ___ Its like rubbing salt into a wound. Its like a case of repetitive violence and horror on young people - it scars the psyche for several hours afterwards. This is like scarring our impression of the sport. + 9 times out of 10 I completely disagree with the intent of Gus Gould and those guys. Its like they are out to knife someone. __ Ultimately all they do is (because they can't change the ref call) they just drag the sport down. Whats the sense in the commentators talking about it. -- They give no one any credit -- They apply excessive amounts of skeptisism to almost everything -- They border on negative far too often --- They are often negative --- And they are not neutral. I get it: they have teams they played for ect. Seriously, who gives a flying f ( for instance, seeing freddy fitler jump in with the roosters the other night --- wrong, wrong wrong, in my book, as a professional he should have been away from that. Make a choice, put on your boots again, or pick a mic, freddy...... now, I dont' actually blame him because of the culture at ch9....but its all got to change, they need to separate themselves from it, be professional, and be neutral, and less critical.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
hey mushi, you raise a good point. it probably requires further examination. I am thinking of all the times there has been a 'blatant' forward pass, mate. They get missed from time to time. Also, we must factor in that these days there is an audience on tv who are like hawks with their eyes as well, and they have an unobstructed and clear view of the action. So in some ways we need to drag reffing in line to modern day standards for sight. Its quite incredible we all have such good views. ** it may be that we need 2 video refs, set up in a kind of proccesor like "dual-core" format. One could watch a replay of the forward pass while the other watched the game continue on. i tend to think between the commentary and the ref's performance, its obfuscating the actuality. forward passes are harder than I may have made out. I think i addressed that, not surprised you may have missed it, since I had a lot going on at once in the article, jumped around a bit. or maybe i edited it out In the case of a forward pass, where the vid ref is viewing such an incident and he can rewind it and then IF it looks too blatant he can make a judgement call - but only if to not do so would cause controversy. there would need to be a clear separation in reffing between 'video refs' calls, weight of influence and validity in certain areas, and on feild refs. __ So, I think in matters of forward passes, if the difference in not calling a missed-one is controversy, then on balance I think the vid ref should call it. Where we can't eliminate the effects of mistakes, we must reduce it. And to a level of satisfaction that the public requires.
Robz
Guest
I personally have not listened to Ch 9 commentary all year and the previous few years I only listened to Ch 9 commentary when Andrew Voss was the main caller. I find my TV mute button and the ABC Radio call works very well. Ch 9 actually does more harm than good for the game of RL in my opinion. Ray Warren is well past it, Phil Gould speaks a lot about non-football related issues or gibbers on about how he predicted something 6 months ago (without any actual proof he did so) or just tries to rile Rabs up over something. And don't even get me started on a current GM of a club even having a role in the commentary team in the first place. Peter Sterling is insightful but rarely gets to the opportunity to actually provide said insight. For Ray Hadley I have no words, he is atrocious. Fittler and Johns - well I can't even understand what they are saying in any case. And every single one of them spends an inordinate amount of time talking about everything except the bloody game going on in front of them. The whole commentary team is an embarrassment. I hope everyone involved in any way with Ch 9s NRL coverage spend the RL off-season watching NFL coverage and learning how to professionally present an elite level football season.
john badseed
Guest
give under9s a scalpel and let THEM do brain surgery.... GF refs are, or should be, professionals and get paid much more than me to do their job for 80 minutes a week. of course it is possible to make a mistake, but come on, error after error after error. This GF has a stink to it that won't just go away. It goes beyond the losing team having a whinge. It will linger unfairly on the most consistent team of the year and reduce the value of their premiership. Maybe JT isn't a nutcase after all.
Andrew
Guest
You are spot on in your criticism of the commentary Von - I've been harping on it for years. The way people view the refereeing in league is a far bigger problem than the actual standard of the refs. I was waiting during the commentary on the penalty try for just one person to say something like "maybe he shouldn't have tackled the bloke without the ball", but it never came. They never ever talk about why the call was made the way it was, just why it might (maybe) have been wrong. Just because you can make an argument the other way doesn't mean it was wrong to go the way they did. The Channel 9 guys do untold damage to the game with the way they carry on - they are stuck in this mode where all they ever do is talk about the reasons a decision was wrong, which just ensures that every game ends with at least one set of supporters kicking stones and unhappy, and undermines overall confidence as you say in the article. I sometimes wonder if they would change if they realised the harm they are doing. Phil Gould has written a bit recently about the disturbing way he sees people behaving in junior football in relation to officials etc - I wonder if he realises he spends half his life conditioning people to question everyting and never accept the officials decision. Give them a whistle each and send them to ref an under 9s game somewhere, with cameras all over the place to check on them and a mob of screaming parents to crucify anythign that might have been an error - that might give them some perspective.
mushi
Guest
Actually it isn't that simple on forward passes because it is how the ball comes out of the hand. So you really can only call "blatant" forward passes, and if that is the case how could it be "blatant" if no one picked it up?