Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cancelling Rooster privilege

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cancelling Rooster privilege

    An argument against the rush of blood six again rulings that refs use to destroy Rooster privilege! - Interesting 'academic' article from the Conversation....When Jason Paris, head of the company that sponsors the New Zealand Warriors NRL team, complained recently about Australian referee bias, more than a few heads will have nodded in agreement.

    Sports fans often think the ref is biased against their team – penalising them for the very same actions the other side is getting away with.

    But taking the element of trans-Tasman rivalry out of the argument for the moment, it’s worth asking whether it’s even possible for referees to operate without being unconsciously influenced by factors beyond their immediate control.

    The honest answer is probably not – despite most professional sporting bodies regularly rejecting claims of bias. It’s clear from a wide range of research that, while it’s unlikely professional referees consciously cheat, they are likely to be affected by unconscious biases. In fact, referee bias has been reported in pretty much every aspect of most sports, including the use of yellow cards, red cards and penalty kicks.

    None of this is surprising, or even particularly critical of referees. Humans are all subject to unconscious bias, and it’s very difficult to overcome.
    Confirmation bias is real


    We all use a range of reasoning shortcuts – also known as “heuristics” – to make decisions and assessments. While useful, many of these shortcuts can lead us astray, despite our best efforts.

    For example, one such heuristic leads us to notice evidence that confirms positions we already hold and to overlook evidence that is inconsistent with those views.

    This tendency – known as confirmation bias – has its uses. It lets us make quick decisions when we don’t have the time to consider all the evidence. And it may reduce mental conflict and increase self-esteem, since it reduces how often we have to acknowledge we were wrong.

  • #2
    I think there is certainly an element of conscious ‘cheating’. The word being the only argument. Handling an outcome or influencing an outcome or action can certainly be perceived as cheating yet can be argued against as well.

    There have been numerous calls, results and outcomes in recent seasons that are obvious to everyone that the officials do not always act impartially. It’s not just the Roosters who are on the receiving end of it either.
    Last edited by rented tracksuit; 05-26-2023, 05:14 PM.
    FVCK CANCER

    Comment


    • #3
      100% there's unconscious bias. matt cecchin was the best ref of his later career and lo and behold our record under him was marginally better than under other refs

      Comment


      • #4
        I just hate the fact they have such an influence over todays game. Watch origin on Wednesday, they put the whistle away and the teams generally sort it out.

        Comment


        • #5
          That call last night from the bunker. The dragons forward that lost the ball in a tackle.

          They ruled it went backwards. But even though the player was past the ball you could see it follow him (forwards) and then hit the hand of the dolphins defender.

          The score was 24 to 12 at the time, throw the "entertainment " of close games in and on the spot sports betting into the mix and it makes you wonder how they thought that was backwards when you can clearly see the forward momentum of the ball.
          Formerly Stringaz, from the old Wall!

          Comment


          • #6
            I’d be keen to watch a game played without refs just to see how important they are

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sentimentinel View Post
              That call last night from the bunker. The dragons forward that lost the ball in a tackle.

              They ruled it went backwards. But even though the player was past the ball you could see it follow him (forwards) and then hit the hand of the dolphins defender.

              The score was 24 to 12 at the time, throw the "entertainment " of close games in and on the spot sports betting into the mix and it makes you wonder how they thought that was backwards when you can clearly see the forward momentum of the ball.
              Bingo on the betting..
              FVCK CANCER

              Comment


              • #8
                The only refs that should be allowed are ex Roosters players & then the Roosters could win every game & win the comp every year.
                How exciting would the comp be then.
                If the refs are unconsciously influenced then whats the problem?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rented tracksuit View Post

                  Bingo on the betting..
                  The closer the margin means more traffic on the apps yea? People hoping for those long odds to get up.
                  Formerly Stringaz, from the old Wall!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Some outcomes are definitely manipulated.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I feel like the results themselves aren't maniuplated - I don't think they particularly care who wins (although sometimes thats hard to argue). I do think some of the posters are spot on though. Scenarios and game management is rife and heavily engineered. If you are behind and there's a 50-50 or piggyback, it'll go your way to give the team the best shot to reduce the deficit based on margins, ratings and betting odds. If its 24-6 in the 50th min and you get a dud no try call that stops it from getting to 24-12, you'll probably tune out. As will most of the neutrals.... this for me is common knowledge and so easy to prove.

                      Only finals games and rep games are different.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by zac View Post
                        100% there's unconscious bias. matt cecchin was the best ref of his later career and lo and behold our record under him was marginally better than under other refs
                        And I heard in an interview with him about his retirement that he felt pressured to perform a certain way. He didn't elaborate but it makes you wonder.

                        I always thought he was a better ref than most, but maybe that was because we seemed to be treated more fairly when he officiated. And then my bias towards the Roosters would influence that also.

                        Look at the way Cameron Smith was treated by the refs. On the most part he spoke reasonably and never seemed to blow up at them. Because of that, he got more than his fair share of 50/50 calls. The refs assumed he respected them and acted that way when making decisions. That's unconscious bias, and as you say it's 100% in referees as it is in most people.

                        We just need a captain that can talk civilly and intelligently to the refs. Seeing Robbo thinks that Rads has one of the best footy brains, maybe he should be captain to have those conversations with the refs!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There should be no room for varying interpretation of the rules.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Noosa Rooster View Post

                            And I heard in an interview with him about his retirement that he felt pressured to perform a certain way. He didn't elaborate but it makes you wonder.

                            I always thought he was a better ref than most, but maybe that was because we seemed to be treated more fairly when he officiated. And then my bias towards the Roosters would influence that also.

                            Look at the way Cameron Smith was treated by the refs. On the most part he spoke reasonably and never seemed to blow up at them. Because of that, he got more than his fair share of 50/50 calls. The refs assumed he respected them and acted that way when making decisions. That's unconscious bias, and as you say it's 100% in referees as it is in most people.

                            We just need a captain that can talk civilly and intelligently to the refs. Seeing Robbo thinks that Rads has one of the best footy brains, maybe he should be captain to have those conversations with the refs!
                            Though I never liked him because he was a souths fan Badger said the same thing to a good mate of mine. He didn't fit in with the clique in the ref ranks and felt he was pushed out of the game.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mickie Lane View Post
                              The only refs that should be allowed are ex Roosters players & then the Roosters could win every game & win the comp every year.
                              How exciting would the comp be then.
                              If the refs are unconsciously influenced then whats the problem?
                              Luke Phillips did us no favours.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X