Re: Steve Ganson : Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:43 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Quite clearly I am drunk. Is that my 4rse or my elbow?

I actually agree with superbeetle.

Moving on...

Happens to the best of us

Re: Steve Ganson : Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:44 pm  

Just watched the Cas v Saints game.

The only "controversial" points I could see were:
The Saints player (Swift?) being called in touch when he wasn't.
The Makinson try that was very close to being touch in goal
And the Turner knock on/no knock on in the 2nd half before a Saints try.

The Saints player being called in touch was obviously a wrong call, but a reasonable one for a touch judge having only one look at it.

The Makinson try was incredibly close and to be honest I couldn't see whether it touched the touch in-goal line or not. I'd have given it as benefit of the doubt.

The Turner knock-on/no knock on - it seemed on the first camera view to be a knock on. But on another looked to be pushed backwards onto a Cas player. Either way, the ref was unsighted and as the ball then bounces backwards (from a Saints perspective) quite a way I can totally see why he just waves play on.

So whilst Cas may have been a smidge "unlucky" in that the Makinson and Turner calls could have easily gone the other way, they are (like the Brough drop goal attempt) "reasonable" decisions.

Re: Steve Ganson : Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:35 am  

The Makinson try was a try. Unless those saying it is not a try have never touched a Rugby ball and have no idea of the shape of the ball.

The ball went down flat. Therefore the base of the ball will have touched the ground in the goal area, before any possible edge could touch a blade of grass on the line. It's simple maths, but once again people like to call controversy where there was not any.

LMS picking up the ball is not a knock on, that's just trying to add controversy to make it look worse.

The turner one was a harsh call, but then so was the swift call and the Manu call. Walmsley had the ball reffed out twice. etc etc...

But once again fans look to the last play to call controversy where as there was an 80 minutes of calls. Had the Manu steal been allowed, we may have scored and not have been chasing the game with 80 seconds to go. You can't say what would have happened. It's not possible to let Manu have his ball steal and then say but the score remains the same at the end. It's a parrallel universe with many possibilities as is the swift foot not in touch. If you get that call the end of the game becomes unknown, it does not follow the same pattern.

Re: Steve Ganson : Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:37 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

The Makinson try was a try. Unless those saying it is not a try have never touched a Rugby ball and have no idea of the shape of the ball.

The ball went down flat. Therefore the base of the ball will have touched the ground in the goal area, before any possible edge could touch a blade of grass on the line. It's simple maths, but once again people like to call controversy where there was not any.

Dont let facts get in the way of a good moan.

Re: Steve Ganson : Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:00 pm  

Saints are definitely getting the rub of things recently. Could well have been on a 3 game losing run instead of being in the next round of the cup and unbeaten in the league.

Looking forward to the 26th big time, should be a classic.

Re: Steve Ganson : Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:34 am  

Perhaps we need a limited referral/challenge system like in cricket/tennis. Two chances for the manager to call the refs bluff and have it checked. I bet that we would be surprised by the results.

Re: Steve Ganson : Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:03 pm  

Levrier wrote:

Perhaps we need a limited referral/challenge system like in cricket/tennis. Two chances for the manager to call the refs bluff and have it checked. I bet that we would be surprised by the results.

But the result would still then be based upon the flawed idiots (& the seemingly arbitary rules/laws) who look at the review.

I'm all for having a coaches challenge (I think on field Captain too) a la Gridiron but this would require the coach to have a screen view/views of the match and ability to contact the 4th official/match ref to interject. Also you would need to have a maxium period of time after the event has happened that the coach/captain could intercede.
As all matches are recorded you could/would have some limited views of situations that might be much clearer on a multi camera game.
would we therefore continue with just those games that are aired live?

Re: Steve Ganson : Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:58 pm  

The ONLY person on the field to make a decision about any play is the referee!
He/she can take advice from touch judges, in goal judges and, if the game is on TV, he can pass decision making to the video referee, but has absolutely the right to decide if he wants to use any of the options.
On the field the referee is the sole arbiter.
Contrary to popular opinion, fans, players,commentators and coaches cannot make the decisions.
All this referee is biased etc is pure bunkum. Just like the players play what they see the match officials deal with what they see in a high speed collision sport.
They will make mistakes, they will miss things because, again for the benefit of some, they do not have 360 degree vision unlike biased spectators who seem to have super vision better than the Hubble telescope .
As for those who are looking for consistency, there are so many variables you may as well howl at the moon. People are involved and no one is consistent in everything they do.

Re: Steve Ganson : Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:32 pm  

What you have is the effect of new technology on a slowly changing game. Yes we have the ability to fully integrate technological change into our game but not the will. We cannot go back to just accepting the decision of the ref because every mistake will be shown up in slow mo but at the same time I do not want us to become another version of American Football with play taking three hours to complete. I do not have an answer but when I watch non televised games I am noticeably less critical of the ref (unless we lose).
I am not a luddite when change is talked about but we seem to have change driven by a few inovators. Sometimes I would like to see someone given responsibility, internationally, for looking at change, especially in technology. Occasionally it would be good for someone to say "That was rubbish, what were we thinking about". Once upon a time rule changes were trialed in friendly fixtures behind closed doors. Today we need the openness to lead fans through the decision making process or we all get on our high horses about what we have seen.
I like innovations which are sold to us as a benefit. I do not like innovation that is not foolproof and I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that technology offers possibilities but it is upto us to steer the dirction that we as a sport take.
At the very root if the issue is common sense. We as supporters want to know that at any game we watch we can expect a particular decision from a particular action (subject to human error). If that is not the case then something needs tweaking.

Re: Steve Ganson : Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:03 am  

Great game, with little controversy. You win some you lose some. I take it that the Cas fans calling foul here were equally as appalled by the forward pass in the build up to their last minute winning try against Hull?

Its all part of the rugby league roller coaster.

Cas were superb for 60 mins! Superb!!