A 50-50 call that goes against your team isn't a 'howler', it's footy

As I stated above, I do not mind the on field ref making a decision but I do mind when he guesses a decision. If the on field ref doesn't know, he should send it up and then he should be allowed to at least take a peek at the replay so if the Bunker can't come up with a decision, the on-field ref can now make a calculated decision after viewing the same evidence that everyone is looking at. You stated that there is no evidence of the ball touching Peachey's arm but what if he made the 'no try' call? It would have been a guess and then what? All I'm saying is that the on-field decisions shouldn't be guesses and they should be given the chance to say "I don't know, and I need to take a look too". What is wrong with that? We force them to follow the rules and than blast them as soon as one goes bad. Thus, they should indicate to the bunker they aren't sure and should the bunker decide to send it back to the ref than at least the ref is not guessing and has viewed the same evidence to come up with a decision. They may still get it wrong, but at least we know now, he isn't guessing

The Barry, you have really nailed it this time on the "thought processes" of losing football fans. Could not agree more with what you have said here.

True enough, but perhaps if the system is juggled enough we'll eventually find the right combination of tiny tweaks that makes everyone mostly happy. Spot on with the ref blaming culture as well, the sooner that's eradicated from the game the better.

Yes, the fact that it went between his legs might influence people. If he had fumbled like this fielding a ball in front of him, at the play-the-ball for eg, it is always classed a knock on. The later travel of the ball is (or al least has been) immaterial.

To me it's like parents that let there kids get away with little things when they're little , thinking it doesn't really matter , ("it's just please and thank you " ) , but by the time they're grown up they're just another assshole in the crowd . The NRL are letting the little things go by the wayside and are oblivious to the long term ramifications.

Hey Matt All good ideas, but really your ideas, mine, everyone's are just juggling the system a bit. Even experts can watch the same incident and come up with different rulings. These aren't once a season occurrences either, it happens multiple times a game. Until we move away from this "refs cost us the game" nonsense it won't matter what system is in place. Calls go our way, calls go against us.

It was pretty suspect, not 100% certain on that one though (didn't watch the game, only saw highlights). Radrada also scored a try that shouldn't have been given though, plus they were pretty fortunate with the Munster sin-bin, they got their fair share of dubious calls too.

Maybe it should just be that the ref isn't required to make a call, but is still able to if he wants to/feels he should? There have been possible tries sent up where you sometimes wonder how the ref's made the call that he has, although that is a very good point regarding Peachey's try. As for the bunker, I know most people hated it, but personally I didn't have that much of an issue with "benefit of the doubt". The person behind the bunker is still human, he's not going to be 100% or even 75% certain on some calls. Personally I feel "I'm not entirely sure but I think it's this" is a bit easier to accept than "I have to call this because the ref said it was". Hopefully it also eliminates the problem where the bunker seems to be mandated to search for whatever it can to overrule rather than just analyse (though I get that that's also personal perspective).

The first suspect try was from a forward pass which the bunker can't rule on. You called the Cronk / Glasby thing "your garden variety FORWARD pass play" again the bunker can't rule in that. I've got to be honest I missed the Cronk / Glasby moment but if Norman ran over waving wildly yelling forward pass, it's not surprising they didn't go upstairs.

I understand where you're coming from but I don't have a problem with the onfield ref making a call. In fact I think Peachey's try is an argument for why they should. What happens if the ref says "I don't know" and sends it upstairs and then the bunker says "I don't know" because the video is inconclusive. We had this a few years ago where the refs wouldn't make a call and they'd send it upstairs and the bunker would come back with a "refs call" and the ref would make a decision. It was awful and we all begged for it to end. Some people have said "if you can't prove it's a try, then it shouldn't be a try" which is ok for groundings or sideline calls and things like that, but with this one are we really going to call it a knock on when there's no footage of him knocking the ball on? Do we call it a knock on because we can't prove he didn't knock it on? It seems silly and back to front to me. I don't know if I've articulated that clearly or not... I also think this idea of "refs are only guessing" is over stated.

I agree with that about reffing to the rules. I think the game is overdue for the refs to tighten the rules. I think fans are ready for it and as long as it was done reasonably consistently most of us would be on board. I don't want to sound like I'm the refs number one fan - there are issues with how the games officiated. It's the poor me I was robbed attitude I can't stand. And to be honest I don't even mind that too much but when a Flanagan sits there with his list blaming the refs for the loss, ignoring the two tries his team scored from 50/50 calls and their 30-odd missed tackles and who knows how many errors...it's all too much I've never watched a game of footy with mates where we've all agreed on every referees decision. Every week on the blogs here there are extremely knowledgeable people debating rules and interpretations. Surely that makes people realise that it's impossible for refs to get every decision "right" because none of us can agree on what right actually is!

TB, I understand your point very clearly but what I dislike about Peachey's try and its supposed 50/50 call is that the on field refs decision decides the outcome of the 50/50 and it no longer is 50/50 because once he says try to a 50/50 call the scale tips to 80/20 and that is not fair at all. If the ref just sends it to the bunker and if it is 50/50 than at least he should take a peek at the replays too before deciding his on field decision, should the bunker refer to it as a "Refs call". You will notice at times that before sending it to the bunker the on-field ref has a puzzled face and that means he is confused but makes one due to the rules and that affects the 50/50 notion. If he ain't sure than, why not just make it clear to the bunker. Guessing on a 50/50 call is the problem here coz I'm sure he had no idea whether it brushed Peachy's arm or not but his on field decision tipped it to the attacking team's advantage and there's nothing 50/50 about that.

There was one obscure incident in the Melbourne game that was 'overlooked' by the officials, experts, roarers here and such. For the Storm multiple passing try in the 46th minute, an offside/forward infringement was ignored. I saw first hand and thought, surely this will be denied by the bunker. But like the suspect 1st try, without review it was awarded. Call it disrespectful, but I understand why Norman was gesticulating crazily to the lead ref who clearly had his own strong headed opinion and did not pay Norman the courtesy of a rightful review. Here it is: the ball was flung back in from the left wing (by JAC or left centre), Glasby goes back to pick the bouncing ball while Cronk facing the Eels line was awaiting the pill to come to him. Cronk grabs the ball first but an instance later, Glasby (not adjacent, not behind) pulls it from his grasp and charges back at the line. There is your garden variety FORWARD pass play right there! Brilliant 15 or so set of hands passing then Bromwich scoring, but that little sneaky forward-hand-off denies the legitimacy of the TRY. (pls watch the video again before you scoff - i think Sterlo saw it too) They have been reviewing the most obvious put downs for a fortnight. Then now in a major semi, againt the ever perfect Storm, the Eels are denied a rightful review twice in a row for suspect trys.

He had downward pressure before ball squeezed out, clear as day - you need to remove the bias in your judgement on the Oates try.

Consistency and 50/50s are oxymorons. Consistency doesn't mean that every game has to have a dead even penalty count/whatever, that's not how it works. I agree there's lots of inconsistency in the rulings in general play, but that's a seperate issue. You can't have the bunker saying "I think it's a try but we gave them one just before so I have to disallow it". The only lesson to be learnt here is that you accept the ref's rulings, whatever they are.

I don't think they should be putting coaches on the stand until at least a day or two after the game , in fact I'm not sure there is any real value in these PC,s at all . Secondly the 50/50,s are always going to be part of the game , that just can't be changed . Coaches whining and fans agreeing on here just validates others to echo the complaints. But I do think there is a need for the refs to adjudicate the rules . Hayne kicked off from the Roosters side of half way a couple of weeks ago and it went unchecked by the refs , he then did a line drop out from the field of play and that also went unchecked , in my way of thinking that's about as stupid as it gets. If the basics are left unaddressed the game will continue to deteriorate in other areas , and before long it will be irreversible.

50/50 calls require consistency. Whilst i think barrett and flannigan were off the mark, I dont think the storm eels game was consistently officiated due to inconsist calls. Calling decisons 50/50 means we want things to equal out by the end of the game. This didnt occur. Melbourne get 2 trys that were so called 50/50. Parra got 1, but another disallowed. Melb get penalty's and parra didnt for the same misdemenour. Thats the inconsistency. 2 refs and a bunker system seems make the refs to accountable imo. NRL has big issues looking at crowd figures and unfortunately id rather my kids watch aussie rules then be drawn into the nrl soap opera.

Wait for it. They're all still bleating on other threads.

Swings and roundabouts

A round of applause to the article and the comments on here. There will always be riffing mistakes because humans are involved and we are fallible. Furthermore we don't have the ringside seat the ref does or the information the bunker has. The furore over the Peachey try was a perfect example of how what you see at home and what the bunker see is different. I thought it was a 50/50 call and the ref had clear vision so back him. He is closer than any camera. But when the video was released of the over head footage of Peachey at the moment he is alleged to knock on, simultaneously side by side with the camera angle shown by channel 9, there is clear separation between hand and ball. Not even close. It was a very lucky try, no doubt. The deflection from the blocked kick could have gone anywhere. The bounce off his chest could have gone into Manly arms and led to a break away. That's footy. I saw Brad Fittler score something similar without a hand laid on him, the ball bounced off the defenders knee straight into his arms and he strolled over the line laughing. Barrett has then gone into the press conference, obviously still emotional and made allegations without the benefit of the footage when clearly he is wrong. No "well done the other team" or "that's footy", just complaints. It's not very sporting and takes away from the focus on an excellent, well fought contest.