Round 12 Write Up

Pieman wrote:

why cant they just say - I think its a try but not sure - instead of ITS A TRY can you find a reason for it to not be one

We used to send decisions to the video ref without making a call for them to overturn.

Everyone hated it, which is why we brought in the current system

I have no idea how going back to the old system that everyone hated will solve anything

Dip wrote:Maybe he's been watching the Tigers for the last two months and assumed the player would do something to fuck up a certain try. A quick review from the video ref confirmed it was in fact the guy who has only been with the club a couple of weeks, so has not yet perfected the art of fucking it up (as it usually takes a few weeks of training with them to pick that up), and therefore awarded the try.

No he just hates the Tigers.

SI wrote:

No he just hates the Tigers.

To be fair they were the more experienced side.










Awwwww yeeeeeah

Bren wrote:
To be fair they were the more experienced side.










Awwwww yeeeeeah

Can't understand why they weren't favourites. Just because QLD have only won 2 out of the last 6 games at ANZ is no reason to not have them as favourites, they are clearly the more experienced origin side.

Milchcow wrote:

We used to send decisions to the video ref without making a call for them to overturn.

Everyone hated it, which is why we brought in the current system

I have no idea how going back to the old system that everyone hated will solve anything

This. The old system was shocking. They still need to have some way of deciding the tries the video ref isn't sure about, and the old system of benefit of the doubt to the attacking team lead to more bad calls imo (as would benefit of the doubt to the defending team). I can live with sticking with the decision of a ref who made the best call they can even though they might not have been in the best position to see it.

SI wrote:

No he just hates the Tigers.

Can't say I've ever noticed, but then it's not my team that's getting the raw deal. I know how you feel though, Tony Archer used to hate QLD teams. The only teams he gave worse decisions to than the Broncos were the QLD SOO side and the Cowboys.

Matt Cecchin on the other hand makes terrible calls for every team. He is just terrible. And so arrogant.

Milchow and Dip - I've obviously been drinking my lunch for the last couple of decades - I don't remember this system

Can you flesh out how it used to work? The system kicking around inside of my head is basically the same as we have now, but adding a third option of "i don't have a f*cking clue" to the available calls, where the video ref makes the initial call, untainted by the on field ref

Milchcow wrote:

We used to send decisions to the video ref without making a call for them to overturn.

Everyone hated it, which is why we brought in the current system

I have no idea how going back to the old system that everyone hated will solve anything

From what I remember - they would send it up with nothing - it would come back Try, No Try, or refs call - but the benefit of the doubt would go with the attacking team.

They could go back to that but get rid of the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and just have the refs opinion.

They just want rules now that take the decision out of the refs hands in order to reduce the backlash for when they fuck up.
The problem is, they fuck up just as much now after looking at 20 replays than they did when it was just the refs opinion.

Dip wrote:

Can't say I've ever noticed, but then it's not my team that's getting the raw deal. I know how you feel though, Tony Archer used to hate QLD teams. The only teams he gave worse decisions to than the Broncos were the QLD SOO side and the Cowboys.

Matt Cecchin on the other hand makes terrible calls for every team. He is just terrible. And so arrogant.

The stats don't actually support the Tigers Badger hate. The Broncos Archer hate is justified with a 12% drop in your win loss ratio. The cowboys however did 19% better under him.

Pieman wrote:

From what I remember - they would send it up with nothing - it would come back Try, No Try, or refs call - but the benefit of the doubt would go with the attacking team.

They could go back to that but get rid of the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and just have the refs opinion.

They just want rules now that take the decision out of the refs hands in order to reduce the backlash for when they fuck up.
The problem is, they fuck up just as much now after looking at 20 replays than they did when it was just the refs opinion.

But isn't that what they have? It's either try, no try, or what the ref said was his opinion when he sent it up.

Realistically, I think the real solution is for the video refs simply to be better (though I think the video ref is actually pretty good tbh).

Your Name wrote:

The stats don't actually support the Tigers Badger hate. The Broncos Archer hate is justified with a 12% drop in your win loss ratio. The cowboys however did 19% better under him.

Interesting. There might also be other reasons to explain differences. For example, given Archer was close to the top rated ref, it would stand to reason that most Broncos games he reffed would be in "match of the round" type scenarios where we would be playing better teams and more likely to lose than matches reffed by say Adam Devcich, which might only occur when we played bottom teams.

I'm really surprised by the Cowboys stat. Perhaps on the same basis, Archer only started reffing the cowboys as they became good from 2005 onwards.

The other possible explanation is that I'm biased for Queensland teams and only remember the decisions that go against them, and maybe it's me with the problem not Archer (and same for SI and Badger).

Your Name wrote:

The stats don't actually support the Tigers Badger hate. The Broncos Archer hate is justified with a 12% drop in your win loss ratio. The cowboys however did 19% better under him.

I can live with Badger, Hayne was a total cunt towards the Tigers though.

Dip wrote:

But isn't that what they have? It's either try, no try, or what the ref said was his opinion when he sent it up.

Realistically, I think the real solution is for the video refs simply to be better (though I think the video ref is actually pretty good tbh).

Well right now its their opinion first.
If they arent 100% sure that its a try or no try, they should send it up - if the video ref cant decide either way, then it could go back to the refs opinion.
They arent far off and nothing is perfect, but I think at the moment the order is out of wack. I hate that a ref has to say his opinion first then they go up and you can eg see its not a try but because he said try - they have to award it.

It should fall back to their opinion only when:
1. They arent 100% sure its a try or no try (Im aware this is opinion, but if they are 100% sure its more fact than opinion - and yes there will be mistakes)
2. The video ref cant say wether its a try or no try

Pieman wrote:

Well right now its their opinion first.
If they arent 100% sure that its a try or no try, they should send it up - if the video ref cant decide either way, then it could go back to the refs opinion.
They arent far off and nothing is perfect, but I think at the moment the order is out of wack. I hate that a ref has to say his opinion first then they go up and you can eg see its not a try but because he said try - they have to award it.

It should fall back to their opinion only when:
1. They arent 100% sure its a try or no try (Im aware this is opinion, but if they are 100% sure its more fact than opinion - and yes there will be mistakes)
2. The video ref cant say wether its a try or no try

That's exactly what is was before?

Krump wrote:
That's exactly what is was before?

Doesnt have BOD to the attacking team

Game of the round!

SI wrote:Game of the round!

JoshKing?

Mullen on the sideline on commentary, sounds like a natural. Could get a regular gi--- wait I've just been told he's done his hamstring. Never mind.

Krump wrote:
I can live with Badger, Hayne was a total cunt towards the Tigers though.

Only 2% worse off with Hayne.

http://afltables.com/rl/misc/referees.html

Fuck me, the knights dont want to win another game this year.
Absolute rubbish.

EDIT: Nathan Ross really wants to win