Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:20 pm  

Fieldheadrhino wrote:

Matt Smith should have got a straight red for that kick on the Widnes player. That IMO was more deserving of a red than Ah Van's red card

I know which challenge I would rather be on the end of! One left the victim slightly miffed for a minute, one left the victim out on the floor with no memory of the game. You're not really living out your sig there.

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:19 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

:lol: I know which challenge I would rather be on the end of! One left the victim slightly miffed for a minute, one left the victim out on the floor with no memory of the game. You're not really living out your sig there.

Irrelevant. One is an accidental mistime, part and parcel of a contact sport. The other is a professional foul. Petulant, offensive, and nothing more than act of violence. It's not about what you'd rather have done to you, but what was in the mind of the person doing it.

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:15 pm  

Chris Dalton wrote:

It's not about what you'd rather have done to you, but what was in the mind of the person doing it.

Is it?

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:27 pm  

How was Westwood's challenge on a yellow when Ah Van's was red?

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:46 pm  

Chris Dalton wrote:

Irrelevant. One is an accidental mistime, part and parcel of a contact sport. The other is a professional foul. Petulant, offensive, and nothing more than act of violence. It's not about what you'd rather have done to you, but what was in the mind of the person doing it.

Didn't half look like Ah Van knew what he was doing. A clenched fist & swinging arm into the face? Oh yes, clearly accidental. Don't know why you think it was mistimed either, he appeared to time it perfectly. It's not as though Charnley was even dipping.

Accidental? Nah. Mistimed? Nah. Rush of blood? Yep.

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:03 am  

I think the RFL have got their assessment of Ah Van right, saying he attempted to tackle but was reckless about the outcome. However, the punishment is harsh. It's a 1-2 match ban and they've given him 2 without taking the red card into account, despite it being issued after only 23 minutes. That's pretty much a 3 match ban for what was just an unfortunate accident, imo.

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:16 am  

I thought Ah Van was pretty unlucky tbh. It's a contact sport and sometimes things will go slightly wrong. I'd have binned him and left it at that tbh.

As for the Matty Smith incident, you just can't do that. It was 10 yards infront of me and I knew instantly he'd get a ban. It was petulant and soft and gave Handbury exactly what he'd been looking for all game from a Wigan player (a reaction).

Funniest decision though from the weekend has to be no ban for Ben Westwood! That's unbelievable.

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Tue Feb 10, 2015 9:37 am  

Not seen the Westwood incident yet but the RFL report says contact with the chest.

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:51 am  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Your arrogance is quite amusing. To actually question other posters as to why they keep having an opinion different to yours when you've been so good as set them straight.

On the particular point, as explained that's not opinion, you just can't accept that you made a glaring mistake.

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

You have such a transparent and telling need to convince yourself that differing opinions can only come about through a lack of intelligence too don't you? What's that about I wonder...

Eh? My posts have no bearing on anyone else's intelligence, I'll talk to anyone about RL. Even you! Seing as you press me on the point, I am in no position to comment on your intelligence but I can say you are too wound up and in a huff to stand back and actually consider the point. Which if of reasonable intelligence you would then be certain to get. What's that about..?

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

My opinion on the new VR set up is clearly expressed in my other posts on the subject, so no point keep raking over old ground. I can accept a difference of opinion even if it's an alien concept to you.

So let's close it there, then. Your opinion (I hope I have this right): Referees operate in a realm of absolute certainty. If there is any area of doubt in any decision, then they are unable to call it. The fact they do so on a second-by-second basis is terribly unfair. When they have the luxury of a VR then they should use it at every opportunity so that at least for one game, some of the poor loves' terminal inability to make calls is eliminated. If there's a VR, it's cruel to still have the ref indicate his decision, downright inhumane. he shouldn't be put through this.

My opinion: There's plenty of doubt about pretty much every call made in a game, which is why the referee needs to make a "DECISION". He doesn't make a Declaration that "I am 100% sure X happened"! He makes decisions, non-stop, thousands of 'em, and I would guess is "certain" about very few. If any. But, his years and thousands of hours of experience however empower and equip him to very confidently make these decisions, and so he does. He makes the call. Every call. And if it is a highly contentious call and he is really struggling then he still makes the call, giving the benefit of the doubt to whichever side the rules and his training indicate he should.

My opinion is your opinion is rubbish, and I note you go ad hominem as you can't argue against what I have explained, but I'll defend to the death etc. your right to have your rubbish opinion. OK?

Re: Don't like threads purely about referees but... : Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:44 am  

Chris Dalton wrote:

Irrelevant. One is an accidental mistime, part and parcel of a contact sport. The other is a professional foul. Petulant, offensive, and nothing more than act of violence. It's not about what you'd rather have done to you, but what was in the mind of the person doing it.

To some degree, yes; but you wrongly state Ah Van's action was "accidental", it wasn't, it was reckless, and there's a world of difference.

I'd have sent Smith off personally, for being a grub and for doing something that has no place in the game, but the potential for injury of what he did was almost nil, whereas in Ah Van's case the potential if he contacted the head was extremely high and likely to be serious.