Rules that are a joke

Don't let them judge more stuff. Please they struggle with basics. Let alone things like forward momentum

Refs having to give a decision before sending it to the bunker, then the onus being on the bunker to disprove it.

dasherhalo wrote:Get rid of the obvious ones. If you can chuck one into a bloke without making it look like you're doing it on purpose, then all power to ya!

When you go looking for the player, however, you end up looking like a tool, and should be penalized accordingly.

Are you suggesting we allow the referee's to make a subjective decision and steer away from a black and white rule?!?!
You'll be deadset locked away if you keep making such outrageous and outlandish suggestions.

I agree though for what it's worth....

Greenberg has given the refs the green light to penalise the player with the ball, if he is deemed to intentionally pass the ball into a player in the ruck. This takes effect immediately. A good move.

No Worries wrote:Refs having to give a decision before sending it to the bunker, then the onus being on the bunker to disprove it.

Nah, I disagree here, in my opinion this is the correct way to do it.

It annoys me when the video ref spends 2 minutes trying to find something conclusive to change a decision. If its not conclusive on one or two looks, then stay with the ref.

If the video ref is given full responsibility over a decision, then you enter some really gray areas around 'benefit of the doubt', it will lead to so much more outrage. They will end up spending way more time looking at replays to try and ensure they have the right call.

I'm with MTB. The video ref annoys me enough as it is needing conclusive evidence, fuck letting them rule on 50/50 calls.

There was a proposal by someone last year that there should be 2 people in the bunker, a ref and an ex player. The on field makes a call, sends it upstairs and both people in the bunker make a call independently of each other. Majority rules. For the on field to be overturned, need a 2 against 1 decision. If the 2 in the bunker cant agree, the onfield call breaks their deadlock and it stands.

ryno_ wrote:There was a proposal by someone last year that there should be 2 people in the bunker, a ref and an ex player.

i thought they already did this? obviously not to the extent you suggest, but surely there is some debate going on in the bunker while a decision is being made.

the reality is, there will always be gray areas and when you try to apply common sense, there will always be a good amount of people who disagree with that 'common sense', especially when there is bias towards their team involved.

there are definitely improvements that can be made around hte game, but the game (media and fans) also need to grow up a little in accepting some decisions, especially 50/50 type calls.

my tv broke wrote:

Nah, I disagree here, in my opinion this is the correct way to do it.

It annoys me when the video ref spends 2 minutes trying to find something conclusive to change a decision. If its not conclusive on one or two looks, then stay with the ref.

If the video ref is given full responsibility over a decision, then you enter some really gray areas around 'benefit of the doubt', it will lead to so much more outrage. They will end up spending way more time looking at replays to try and ensure they have the right call.

I think it would actually speed things up. You don't have 1 official trying to contradict the other. I'm pretty sure I've got this right make a suggestion, and if it isnt clear cut it comes back to the on field decision, if I have no clue then the bunker isn't watching it 1000 times to prove or disprove, they watch it make a decision and sent it back down.

awesome to see the nrl has changed the hooker thing. If the NRL is still reading the thread, i still hate how we give teams a second chance for taking a penalty tap with a player offside.


re the video ref, tricky one, i generally like it the way it is because the ref might have a better feel for something live. but i also get the idea of hating when the ref has to guess and then the video ref having a good idea about what the result should be but not conclusive evidence to overturn something the ref said simply because he has to choose one way or the other

i remember thinking myself a few years ago maybe the ref could just have 3 options. try, not try & not sure but if the ref goes up saying he doesn't know, and the video ref has no evidence either way, then what the fuck happens next ?


to me, its probably one of those things that can't be perfect and we will whinge about regardless, i can probably live with the current system

No Worries wrote:Refs having to give a decision before sending it to the bunker, then the onus being on the bunker to disprove it.

We tried it the other way. People didn't like that either

leaguegod wrote:awesome to see the nrl has changed the hooker thing. If the NRL is still reading the thread, i still hate how we give teams a second chance for taking a penalty tap with a player offside.

absolutely.
its offside and should be a penalty.