Anyone hear Harrigan on the radio yesterday.

[supermario]

2 refs and 2 touchies should be more than capable of ruling on a match in a perfect world.

In the current world we have, we have 2 refs with differing "interpretations" of the rules and 2 touchies that are too busy looking at the ruck (which is why the pocket ref is there) and not the offside or forward passes which was the role of the Touchie in the past.

My biggest gripe is that the rules of Rugby league have been changed from "rules" to "interpretations", that is what is killing the consistancy of the refs.

[player 1]

So we have 2 refs, 2 blind & useless touchies, and 2 in the video ref box.
Slow motion/different angles/head-on/side-on etc.
6 sets of eyes and they still get it wrong.

The refs just don't have any confidence in themselves to make decisions. I can cop a dud decision with only one ref and no video ref, but the current system has produced some pearlers as stuff-ups. With all the technology available, you would think these idiots would get decisions right.

And it seems every week Harrigon changes the interpretation of the rules. One week, focus on play-the-ball, next week the ruck, another week a larger/or smaller 10 metres etc. Its like they make it up on the run. Where is the consistency?

Each week it is pot luck which ref/video ref combo you get. Always dread when Russell Smith video ref's our games!

Spot on. What we have now is players not even honestly trying to make a tackle, but deliberately diving to make contact with decoy runners, ignoring the ball player, then getting in the ref's face DEMANDING the video ref to look, to find something, ANYTHING, that might lead to tries being disalllowed. It is pathetic and needs to stop, if it looks like a try to the ref then award the bloody thing.

[BUDDY]

watched that BOD try again last night. (in slow mo etc a few times)
That one camera angle was quite conclusive I thought.
It was no try...easily..I dont even think there was doubt?

Even the commentators said it straight away without hesitation.

That was my point. It was clear at first look yet that is the only time they looked at it. They looked at the other angles 3 or 4 times where you can't clearly tell where the line actually is. Of course from those angles it is BOD. The front on shot is definately a no try.

[Guest]

The ball is round. If only part of the ball ends up touching the line then logically the first point of contact is with green. i.e. the centre of the ball touches green before the outer edge touches the line.

They generally give those BOD.

[Headless Chook]

The ball is round. If only part of the ball ends up touching the line then logically the first point of contact is with green. i.e. the centre of the ball touches green before the outer edge touches the line.

They generally give those BOD.

No, the ball is oval, not round....thats soccer. And the point of contact will depend on the angle with which the ball is being held, hand positioning, the direction in which the downward pressure is being exerted and probably a host of other things that I have left out. If our refs are stupid enough to think what you have written, then its no wonder they struggle to get things right!

[Guest]

Regardless....BOD should go to the defence..

Most BOD decsions come off kicks or pathetic ummy half dive overs....most fans think bombs are the last resort of a poor attacking team...make the attack earn the try by making it as clean and clear as daylight like anastas bomb catch or dare i say it steve Gearin...

I think most fans will accept that if there team can only rely on bombs then they should not only gamble with the bomb but the odds being against them for the possible video ref decision unless thye make it precise.

The only time BOD should be given is for passes as the attacking team deserves it for having a crack.

[Guest]

The ball is round. If only part of the ball ends up touching the line then logically the first point of contact is with green. i.e. the centre of the ball touches green before the outer edge touches the line.

They generally give those BOD.

and the earth is flat

[BUDDY]

No, the ball is oval, not round....thats soccer. And the point of contact will depend on the angle with which the ball is being held, hand positioning, the direction in which the downward pressure is being exerted and probably a host of other things that I have left out. If our refs are stupid enough to think what you have written, then its no wonder they struggle to get things right!

Bingo. The fact the video ref watched the angle which was most the conclusive only once is what makes the whole video ref a farce. I suppose Merritt's throw back was also a fair BOD because one angle was inconclusive whether he released the ball before his foot hit the ground

Dice and TOK and NFI.

[Guest]

No, the ball is oval, not round....thats soccer. And the point of contact will depend on the angle with which the ball is being held, hand positioning, the direction in which the downward pressure is being exerted and probably a host of other things that I have left out. If our refs are stupid enough to think what you have written, then its no wonder they struggle to get things right!

Being smartass doesn't make you right, it just makes you a smartass. I am well aware a rugby league ball is "oval", an ellipsoid if you want to get technical about it. Either way it has curvature and if only part of the ball touches the line then the likelihood is initial contact is not with the line.

There is no way from the given replays the video ref could have disallowed the try. The head-on shot does show the ball touch the line, but the side-on shot put lots of doubt as to whether it touched the line first.

A few years ago we were the beneficiaries of a similar decision to win a game with Finch grounding the ball near the line. No Roosters fans were complaining about it then.

[Kramer]

2 refs and 2 touchies should be more than capable of ruling on a match in a perfect world.

In the current world we have, we have 2 refs with differing "interpretations" of the rules and 2 touchies that are too busy looking at the ruck (which is why the pocket ref is there) and not the offside or forward passes which was the role of the Touchie in the past.

My biggest gripe is that the rules of Rugby league have been changed from "rules" to "interpretations", that is what is killing the consistancy of the refs.

To bloody right!

[Headless Chook]

Being smartass doesn't make you right, it just makes you a smartass. I am well aware a rugby league ball is "oval", an ellipsoid if you want to get technical about it. Either way it has curvature and if only part of the ball touches the line then the likelihood is initial contact is not with the line.

There is no way from the given replays the video ref could have disallowed the try. The head-on shot does show the ball touch the line, but the side-on shot put lots of doubt as to whether it touched the line first.

A few years ago we were the beneficiaries of a similar decision to win a game with Finch grounding the ball near the line. No Roosters fans were complaining about it then.

Wasn't being a smartass, just pointing out that you were wrong. The ball is oval and hence can be placed on its point, unlike a round ball which has no pointed end.