|
|
Post by gunner on May 20, 2019 11:30:54 GMT
When is Mr Childs going to be called out, it is beyond being a bad match official, this guy as form against Salford, the decision was not even controversial he clearly knocked on. Does anyone believe the other way round it would have remotely been given. I know guys who have recently stop going because they believe the odds are stacked against us, I am beginning to think these guys are right. I hope the club have asked for an explanation! Well done Salford great performance, made me proud to be a Salford supporter, you deserved more 1 to 17? I actually think he made the right call - well his hands were tied by the call on the field that it was a try anyway. The Saints player went to ground with both hands on the ball. The last thing the video ref can see is the right hand on the ball. You can’t see on the video if his right hand (not the left which everyone is focusing on) ever comes off the ball. As the video ref can’t see the right hand he has no evidence to overturn the on the field decision. It’s harsh but nowt he could do. Although I don't agree with your assessment, however assuming you are right, if the boot was on the other foot do you seriously believe Salford would have been awarded the try? |
|
|
|
Post by osrd on May 20, 2019 12:19:41 GMT
When is Mr Childs going to be called out, it is beyond being a bad match official, this guy as form against Salford, the decision was not even controversial he clearly knocked on. Does anyone believe the other way round it would have remotely been given. I know guys who have recently stop going because they believe the odds are stacked against us, I am beginning to think these guys are right. I hope the club have asked for an explanation! Well done Salford great performance, made me proud to be a Salford supporter, you deserved more 1 to 17? I actually think he made the right call - well his hands were tied by the call on the field that it was a try anyway. The Saints player went to ground with both hands on the ball. The last thing the video ref can see is the right hand on the ball. You can’t see on the video if his right hand (not the left which everyone is focusing on) ever comes off the ball. As the video ref can’t see the right hand he has no evidence to overturn the on the field decision. It’s harsh but nowt he could do.at London Red, every person that I have spoken to including many non Salford fans feel of what they have seen, watching it live on Sky, watching at the game itself, reviewing the incident several times, plus listening to all the Sky team and their comments, all give the view that the video ref got the decision wrong. Unless all these people need to get their glasses changed Bentley did not have full control of the ball at all times. The match ref and touch judges also missed a blatant high shot on Joey Lussick, which again the video ref never brought to the officials attention, which has happened numerous times in previous matches,why? Saints are a great team,Salford matched them and could have won the match let’s enjoy it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 12:37:38 GMT
Right folks before this gets out of hand I was simply stating that not everyone disagreed with the decision. In my opinion the rules only allow the VR to overrule the on field decision with clear evidence- as we never see the right hand come off the ball there is none. This view was shared by Ian Smith (former ref) who knows more about the application of the rules than the commentators on Sky.
I respect everyone’s opinion on this but It’s done and I’m looking forward to Sunday. I regret mentioning it but (even though I dislike him as a referee) I do think it needs pointing out that there is an explanation for the decision that isn’t really being mentioned.
|
|
|
|
V Saints
May 20, 2019 13:44:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by redunderthebed on May 20, 2019 13:44:15 GMT
Right folks before this gets out of hand I was simply stating that not everyone disagreed with the decision. In my opinion the rules only allow the VR to overrule the on field decision with clear evidence- as we never see the right hand come off the ball there is none. This view was shared by Ian Smith (former ref) who knows more about the application of the rules than the commentators on Sky. I respect everyone’s opinion on this but It’s done and I’m looking forward to Sunday. I regret mentioning it but (even though I dislike him as a referee) I do think it needs pointing out that there is an explanation for the decision that isn’t really being mentioned. Well done for putting your head above the parapet. I agree with you but had decided it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing with people intent to prove there is an anti-Salford conspiracy. I had enough of that after the Wigsn game and with people on the terraces at a few games. But given you’ve braved it I’ll join you. I can absolutely see why people are convinced it’s a knock on. And it might well be. There’s no way at full speed where the ref is stood that the on field ref could give anything except try if it’s not in sky we’re not having this conversation. You can’t see his other hand so you can’t prove he lost complete control. Cummings said on sky that the VR had to go with on field ref I’m also a bit confused about what the rule is now about it coming away from your hand and staying in contact with your arm. All the commentators at the Halifax v Bradford game we’re saying a Halifax try was incorrectly ruled out when his hand rolled over the ball and it hit the line about half way up him forearm. If that should have been a try then so should this Also I was told repeatedly last year that refs shouldn’t make active decisions at the end of games to decide things when child gave myler a penalty at Leeds but apparently ruling out a try in the last minute on incomplete evidence is ok. I am devastated by how we lost in the last minute and feel we deserved he win after the performance but we let in 32 points in the first and last 15 minutes and only scored 30 points in the 50 minutes we dominated. that’s why lost. Heartbreaking but sometimes that is sport |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V Saints
May 20, 2019 14:26:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 14:26:00 GMT
It's never made sense to me how the ref can say there's been a possible knock on but send it up as try?
If people think it was a try then fair enough but if the VR is going with the refs call on any 50/50 it makes you wonder what's the point of the VR in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Dave on May 20, 2019 14:53:18 GMT
What it boils down to in these circumstances is the referee isn’t sure so he has to guess. He tells the video ref what his guess is, and unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, the video referee supports that guess.
If the Saints’ try had been sent up without a decision I am pretty sure it would have been disallowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitch on May 20, 2019 15:20:28 GMT
How about a third way the video ref could send it up "I was unsighted" and therefore neutral? Asking the ref to send it up as a try or no try when he was unsighted will always lead to cock ups like this. If in the case of a grounding, the ref could say "I was unsighted" then the video ref would be free to call it as they see it, rather than balancing evidence against an on field call.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
V Saints
May 20, 2019 15:23:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 15:23:23 GMT
How about a third way the video ref could send it up "I was unsighted" and therefore neutral? Asking the ref to send it up as a try or no try when he was unsighted will always lead to cock ups like this. If in the case of a grounding, the ref could say "I was unsighted" then the video ref would be free to call it as they see it, rather than balancing evidence against an on field call. How dare you, that is bordering on common sense. |
|
|
|
Post by JJR on May 20, 2019 17:02:16 GMT
Just look at RU, streets ahead, sadly. And the decision often is shown back to the ref who finalises. Not hard to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonitared on May 20, 2019 17:21:04 GMT
If we’d scored that try and it’d been disallowed there would have been a riot.
For once,I agree that there was insufficient evidence to overturn an on field decision.
I don’t think it was a try but,without tv then it would’ve been given 9 times out of 10
However,I agree that Union does it better.
|
|
|
|
V Saints
May 20, 2019 18:54:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by redunderthebed on May 20, 2019 18:54:37 GMT
How do union do it? I haven’t seen lots but not noticed much difference other than including forward passes in their version
|
|
|
|
Post by JJR on May 20, 2019 21:21:17 GMT
Union have someone watching the match who brings to the refs attention to anything untoward.
At tries the ref asks the question...'was that a try' doesn't have to guess...much more professional
And the ref often sees the incident rerun on the screen, discusses with the off field ref and comes to a decision.
Really professional.
|
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyred on May 21, 2019 10:56:22 GMT
In fairness, the rules in Union are more complex (specially in size) than our laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by JJR on May 21, 2019 15:35:57 GMT
Yes but their process seems get better judgement. Too many mistakes made in RL
|
|
|
|
Post by tasi on May 21, 2019 15:50:04 GMT
Forget the video ref , silly penalties at the end cost us the game !
Saints were there for the taking , they rested players , had over a days rest less than us , and we were pretty much at full strength
Why do we ALWAYS blame the officials when we lose ? As Londonred said, the video ref had no choice but to agree with the on field decision
|
|
