Video Ref's - More clarity required? : Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:51 am  

Before I get all the, you lost mate get over it, Wigan were the better team etc, etc, etc. Wigan were the better team, outplayed us for 55 of the eighty, our discipline was poor and (as it is relevant to this post) our kick defence is a real problem. They WERE the better team on the night!

I would like this to be a sensible discussion about Ref's and Video refs! I of course live in hope!

I am no longer clear, when I thought I was, about Video ref's and what they can and can't rule on and also what we should be expecting ref's to rule on in and around try scoring plays.

Couple of recent cases that are confusing me. Firstly, we have the Uncle Albert and the Wellens hand off incident in the Saints Wakey game where Uncle Albert does not ask the Video ref (was it Smith?) to look at that incident but he take it upon himself and clearly does. Of course it does not matter he gave the try, what matters is that he looked without the ref's request. We have the Atkins try at Wakefield v Leeds that appeared to show a clear knock on at the play the ball prior to the kick. However, Ganson does not ask the Video ref to look at that, so he doesn't. We also have the Ali on report incident at the same game, I have it on reasonable authority that at the sight of the reply, the Video ref did advise Ganson, without prompting, to put him on report!

So last night we have what I understand was an obstruction/interference ruling from the video ref aginst McGuire. Now, firstly Mr Bentham asks Smith to look at it this, that is clear from Sky, but I have to question why?

If we just say that Danny was not near the play and it had just been Richards and Hall going to the air for the ball. Then, as we most often see, the ref asks the video, and he rules on the knock on, that is correct. It would have been a knock on and our ball (I think ). Ok, if Bentham thinks that Danny deliberately got in Richard's way why did he not rule it as penalty and give it straight away? Because a Wigan player touched the ball down... but what if he hadn't and it went dead, would Bentham have asked the Video ref to look then at both the obstruction and how to re-start the game. I bet he might, and only might, just have asked how to re-start the game but nothing more. It was either an obstruction or it wasn't in the eyes of the ref, why in this type of situation only do the ref's ask the Video? If this had not been on Sky would Bentham have given the penalty straight away, would he have decided in the spur of the moment that it was an obstruction and therefore advantage to Wigan, even though they knocked on, and give the try.

I think when it comes to televised games are we taking the whole video rulings too far, should we be saying that the Video ref can only rule on the last offence committed and the grounding or only one offence he thinks took place and the grounding on a try scoring play ? On that particular incident Bentham asks Smith to look at the on-side off-side, did Danny get in the way, did Richards knock the ball-on and did the player ground the ball correctly??? Did Bentham have his eyes closed or does he have such a low opinion of his own ability that he can't make any decisions?

As it turns out, if you do think Danny got in the way (which is a whole other thread) then Smith was correct in his ruling with a Penalty attack. It is not the outcome, but the process that worries me.

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:22 am  

I don't see the problem here.

The video referee should be able to rule on any infringements back to the play the ball. In effect is it a try or no try on that play.

The play the ball, the onside/offside, any interference and grounding are all potentially in the dock. I assume that the referees are trying to help by highlighting specific areas of concern, no more or no less than that. It's important that the video ref doesn't waste time and effort analysing every inch of the play for minor infringements and just sticks to the basics elements though.

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:30 am  

i heard benthem ask the VR if mcuire had possibly fouled richards. i think he got it wrong mind but i did hear him ask

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:44 pm  

I was curious why McGuire was penalised for not challenging for the ball, yet minutes later we went down the other end, Hall challenged and won a ball in the air, was upended by someone on the ground not challenging and it was called turnover due to it being on the last.

It may seem petty to mention it, but I questioned it at the time and wondered if anyone else noticed?

I know Bentham didn't give the McGuire call, the VR did, but still, it screams inconsistency (as does penalising for stepping off the mark once, then ignoring it all night when both Phelps and Smith were doing it all game).

I also wonder if its fair to penalise a defender when their arm is trapped between the ball and the attacker as happened last night. If you rip your arm out as the defender, the ball comes free and you are penalised for ripping the ball, if you dont you get penalised for interference.....i am unsure how a defender can get free from that situation....

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:50 pm  

RossRhino wrote:

I was curious why McGuire was penalised for not challenging for the ball, yet minutes later we went down the other end, Hall challenged and won a ball it he air, was upended by someone on the ground not challenging and it was called turnover due to it being on the last.

It may seem petty to mention it, but I questioned it at the time and wondered if anyone else noticed?

I know Bentham didn't give the McGuire call, the VR did, but still, it screams inconsistency (as does penalising for stepping off the mark once, then ignoring it all night when both Phelps and Smith were doing it all game).

I also wonder if its fair to penalise a defender when their arm is trapped between the ball and the attacker as happened last night. If you rip your arm out as the defender, the ball comes free and you are penalised for ripping the ball, if you dont you get penalised for interference.....i am unsure how a defender can get free from that situation....

We were sat there wondering the same at the time!! But being there live and not in front of the tv didn't know if it was just us !!

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:14 pm  

RossRhino wrote:

I was curious why McGuire was penalised for not challenging for the ball, yet minutes later we went down the other end, Hall challenged and won a ball in the air, was upended by someone on the ground not challenging and it was called turnover due to it being on the last.

It may seem petty to mention it, but I questioned it at the time and wondered if anyone else noticed?

I know Bentham didn't give the McGuire call, the VR did, but still, it screams inconsistency (as does penalising for stepping off the mark once, then ignoring it all night when both Phelps and Smith were doing it all game).

I also wonder if its fair to penalise a defender when their arm is trapped between the ball and the attacker as happened last night. If you rip your arm out as the defender, the ball comes free and you are penalised for ripping the ball, if you dont you get penalised for interference.....i am unsure how a defender can get free from that situation....

Perhaps don't get your arm trapped in there in the first place.

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:15 pm  

FoxyRhino wrote:

Perhaps don't get your arm trapped in there in the first place.

How would you propose to do that, not bother clamping the ball so attackers can get easy offloads?

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:36 am  

On the subject, one of the tries that WIgan scored via the video ref, the ball was shown to be clearly not played correctly. If the vidoe ref looks at everything in that play, they should be consistent in it, and look at key areas, or only look at what the ref asks them to.

Re: Video Ref's - More clarity required? : Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:16 am  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

Couple of recent cases that are confusing me. Firstly, we have the Uncle Albert and the Wellens hand off incident in the Saints Wakey game where Uncle Albert does not ask the Video ref (was it Smith?) to look at that incident but he take it upon himself and clearly does. Of course it does not matter he gave the try, what matters is that he looked without the ref's request.

Think you might find that it was Ganson

: Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:23 am  

two things that i noticed watching.
when coley was penalised for laying on he gave the ref a gobfull. bentham called him over and gave him a bollocking.shouldn't we have got 10 metres more?

near the end a wigan player passed off the ground and the turnover was awarded. shouldn't it have been a penalty?

neither would have affected the result,just got me thinking about consistency