Force dissadvantaged by non-neutral video referee?

Yes, the video ref on Friday was an Aussie, and I believe that this worked against the chance of a positive decision on THAT try.

A professional ref is more likely to rule negative in awarding a very close decision in favour of his countrymen. The potential finger-pointing of a "home-town decision" would be not be pleasant for a video ref to face. The field ref and touch judges were neutral (from South Africa), so why, I ask, is the video-ref not neutral, particularly since more and more decisions are being referred to him?

If indeed the decision was so close that the video-ref could not be sure, he should have referred back to the field ref for decision. I read a report that the Force players heard the touch judge say that he believed that the try was good.

Which leads me to another observation. This touch judge was the same man who, as video ref, made that appalling no-try decision that cost the Bulls a game a few weeks ago. I thought that he was to be sent back to referee school and lesser level games. Why is he still officiating Super 14? Perhaps the field ref did not have sufficient confidence in his touchy's opinion.

If he just followed the rules he would have been fine. The video refs job is to find a reason NOT to award the try. Did you see a reason NOT to award it?

I read an article which stated that it went up to the TMO who passed it back

"Instead of awarding what appeared to be a legitimate try to Force wing Haig Sare, Acton made a clanger of a mistake when he referred the decision back to referee Marius Jonker. "

here (The same article I liked to the a different thread): http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,...a10295,00.html

I haven't heard ANYONE say it was the correct decision - anyways, whats done is done - if it had have been allowed, perhaps the Crusaders would have scored from teh restart - who can tell...

hmmmm i get what your saying about the video ref ... but I still looked like a try!!! I dont think any one would have argued any different if it was given to em ... unless the crusaders are really sore losers :P

Don't worry, they are. Sometimes sore winners too.

Isn't there some kind of rule about the attacking team being given the BENEFIT of the doubt in close try decisions where neither the TMO or ref are absolutely sure? I felt that should have applied to the first Sare no-try.

The second no-try off a knock-on looked like this on slowmo tape : Crusader player kicks to a Force player who is 2.5 metres in front of a line 10 from halfway. Ball hits him in legs and ricochets spinning sideways back to a position of 1.5 metres in front of 10 from halfway , where Sare picks up and runs for try in the corner. WHERE WAS THE KNOCK-ON ? The ball spun sideways backwards off the first Force players legs ! (The back of his heels as he turned to chase the kick)

Before this, a ball from O'Young to Sharpie was spilled forward, giving the Crusaders the advantage and possession, but that wasn't signed by ref. At a ruck previous to this, ref did sign towards Crus line about something, but no comment made by commentators in lead up, except when ref blew whistle as Sare going for line.

FORCE WAS ROBBED TWICE !!!!!!

G'day all. I think this is why you can't take guns to the game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's good to see that it's not only me that's noticed the poor quality of desisions made by refs and the like. :(
Do you think that the video ref should be done away with so the ground ref can then make his own desision in conjuntion with linesmen like the 'Good old days' when the ref had to make his own mind up, and not depend on replays?

yep get rid of the video ref :) if desisions could be made without the video ref before ... Im sure they can be made after :P silly refs should go back to ref school ... or I could just ref :) but that may make a little more biased then it was before :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonzy

yep get rid of the video ref :) or I could just ref :) :)

---

MMMMMMMMMMMM...........We woulld probably like that .lol :iconrofl:

would u wear dark glasses and run around with a white cane too. :D

i'm sure some (Not all) of the refs do. :rofl: .... :dizzy:

Good to see you finally post something Flamethrower, hopefully many more to come ;)
Sweetooth, I think the TMO process has definitely got a place, especially in major tournaments.
The technology is not the problem, it's just the clowns who are using it.
3m viewers could see that it was a try, even the opposition admitted it was a try!
But Blind Freddy didn't have the balls to make a call.
Maybe we should install an "ask the audience" voting system to help them out?
Is the answer-
a; Try
b; Attacking 5m Scrum
c; Defending 5m Scrum
d; Twenty Two Restart
I will hopefully have the replay tonight to check it out again, but my understanding is that the TMO cannot rule outside of the In Goal Area.
Therefore, as the Touch Judge (who was right on the spot!) had confirmed that he was happy that the player was not out in the field of play they went "up stairs".
At that point there is no possible way that I know of that the restart can be a lineout.
It has to be a try, held up, knocked on/incorrectly grounded or touch in goal because the Ref is asking for a decision on the only area that the TMO can adjudicate, the In Goal Area.
To my memory the decision was referred back to the Ref and he called for the lineout.
Not only was the Ref wrong and the Touch Judge (also a qualified Ref) silent, the TMO would have had to have been blind to think that Sare’s leg went over the line before he grounded the ball.
Probably the only thing to come out of all this is that RugbyWA need to make the playing lines much MUCH more distinctive to allow for Magoo TMO’s!
It is all bygone’s now and my attention now swings to the Cats tonight and hopefully a convincing win to show Australian teams that we can win at altitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgs

Maybe we should install an "ask the audience" voting system to help them out?
Is the answer-
a; Try
b; Attacking 5m Scrum
c; Defending 5m Scrum
d; Twenty Two Restart
.

---

WOWW would'nt that be some-thing.
Could be a slight disadvantage for the away team though. MMMMMMMM

but very true what you say about the rulings, can't add to it but maybe the refs could put in more training with the eye to ball co-ordination excersizes, or something like that.
Maybe this littl fella could help :box: now you see me, now............ :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MysticBalls

Isn't there some kind of rule about the attacking team being given the BENEFIT of the doubt in close try decisions where neither the TMO or ref are absolutely sure? I felt that should have applied to the first Sare no-try.

The second no-try off a knock-on looked like this on slowmo tape : Crusader player kicks to a Force player who is 2.5 metres in front of a line 10 from halfway. Ball hits him in legs and ricochets spinning sideways back to a position of 1.5 metres in front of 10 from halfway , where Sare picks up and runs for try in the corner. WHERE WAS THE KNOCK-ON ? The ball spun sideways backwards off the first Force players legs ! (The back of his heels as he turned to chase the kick)

Before this, a ball from O'Young to Sharpie was spilled forward, giving the Crusaders the advantage and possession, but that wasn't signed by ref. At a ruck previous to this, ref did sign towards Crus line about something, but no comment made by commentators in lead up, except when ref blew whistle as Sare going for line.

FORCE WAS ROBBED TWICE !!!!!!

---

The knock on happened before the crusaders kicked the ball into the force player... Hate to say it but the ref got it right that time...

Yeah agree there Dramoth, I was pretty confident of the Refs call there, despite everyone else watching with me jumping around the room.
If not the infringment, the fact that he called the advantage affected the game anyway and it was well before the try line was crossed, so regardless it had to be a no try.