Shot Clock for Video Referees?

[Spirit of 66]

The time taken to rule against the Fergo try (from Elliott's touch) was absurd.

I am not disputing the ruling, but the teams could have left the field, had a couple of beers and returned to the field in the time Steve Chiddy took to review the incident.

He was determined to find an error and, 300 replays and the use of a scanning electron microscope later, he made his ruling.

Meanwhile, Guerra's try was disallowed in an instant because Friend made the mistake of running behind him just after releasing the ball...

[kurtsherlock6]

The time taken to rule against the Fergo try (from Elliott's touch) was absurd.

I am not disputing the ruling, but the teams could have left the field, had a couple of beers and returned to the field in the time Steve Chiddy took to review the incident.

He was determined to find an error and, 300 replays and the use of a scanning electron microscope later, he made his ruling.

Meanwhile, Guerra's try was disallowed in an instant because Friend made the mistake of running behind him just after releasing the ball...

Maybe after they check the onside they should go straight to the close up. If they had of done this last night it would of save alot of time and fan frustration. The time they took to come up with that decision was a joke and an embarrasment.

[Johnny Tobin]

I don't see how the "bunker" will make one iota of difference.

[The Prowler]

It could be handy when the fans start rioting.

[Hawkeye]

Whilst in general they do seem to take too long to make a decision, I thought this was one of the few times they could be generally excused for taking so long to get the correct decision on the Fergo no-try.
The first few views looked for all money it was a fair try, but that last view (which was the 4th or 5th look, clearly showed the ball flicking Elliot's finger. I find it hard to be critical when they eventually get the right decision.
Guess if it were the Broncos, we'd have been glad they took so many looks at it to eventually get the correct decision.

As for the Guerra no try, I was sitting directly in line and thought it was unlucky, but they can't go upstairs for forward pass decisions. They let so many blatant forward passes go unscathed, and they eventually pick on something very flat !

[roostersrule2]

It could be handy when the fans start rioting.

Or if Marshall Applewhite returned.

[kurtsherlock6]

I don't see how the "bunker" will make one iota of difference.

The only difference is it will make the whole process take even longer.

[Spirit of 66]

Whilst in general they do seem to take too long to make a decision, I thought this was one of the few times they could be generally excused for taking so long to get the correct decision on the Fergo no-try.
The first few views looked for all money it was a fair try, but that last view (which was the 4th or 5th look, clearly showed the ball flicking Elliot's finger. I find it hard to be critical when they eventually get the right decision.
Guess if it were the Broncos, we'd have been glad they took so many looks at it to eventually get the correct decision.

As for the Guerra no try, I was sitting directly in line and thought it was unlucky, but they can't go upstairs for forward pass decisions. They let so many blatant forward passes go unscathed, and they eventually pick on something very flat !

But you see my point - they can spend a half an hour examining microscopic detail for one (correct) decision, but spend no time at all guessing (incorrectly in my view) another. If they value accuracy, put a camera on every blade of grass and review everything. If they are prepared to just guess, then guess everything!

[OMR]

A 40 sec clock should be imposed. To replay something 11 times is an embarassment. 3 replays should suffice, if you can't find sufficient evidence, then you stick to the ref's decision.

[player 1]

"Forward passes". The rules are simple - if the ball leaves the hands flat or backward relative to the hands of the passer it is legal.

But you hear so many commentators still saying things like "oh look, he passed it on the 40 metre line and the guy caught it AT LEAST 2 metres in front of him!!"

The physics of trajectory motion escape many people, including unfortunately many of our match officials. If you are running at 20 km/hr and pass the ball flat, the ball will keep going forward at 20 km/hr. If there's some distance between the passer and receiver the ball will travel A LONG WAY forward relative to the ground.

The incorrect forward pass calls will always be more likely when the passer is stopped dead in his tracks by the defence as he passes or, as with Friend in this case, he runs back after passing.

What I don't understand is why this area is exempted from video referee adjudication. What is the reason exactly? Because if the above principles are applied I don't see how they could get this any more wrong than the hundreds of other things they deliberate obsessively over.

Me? I still say scrap the video ref altogether and live with the on field call for better or worse. It will never happen though, Colonel Sanders wouldn't allow it.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

"Forward passes". The rules are simple - if the ball leaves the hands flat or backward relative to the hands of the passer it is legal.

But you hear so many commentators still saying things like "oh look, he passed it on the 40 metre line and the guy caught it AT LEAST 2 metres in front of him!!"

The physics of trajectory motion escape many people, including unfortunately many of our match officials. If you are running at 20 km/hr and pass the ball flat, the ball will keep going forward at 20 km/hr. If there's some distance between the passer and receiver the ball will travel A LONG WAY forward relative to the ground.

The incorrect forward pass calls will always be more likely when the passer is stopped dead in his tracks by the defence as he passes or, as with Friend in this case, he runs back after passing.

What I don't understand is why this area is exempted from video referee adjudication. What is the reason exactly? Because if the above principles are applied I don't see how they could get this any more wrong than the hundreds of other things they deliberate obsessively over.

Me? I still say scrap the video ref altogether and live with the on field call for better or worse. It will never happen though, Colonel Sanders wouldn't allow it.

Aargh...forward passes my single biggest bugbear with the game.

Just let em go...please...ala rugby style.

It's pretty rare for a pass to be thrown forward as described by Player1 above...but if it is its obvious.

If there's any doubt in the mind of the official keep the whistle away from the mouth. Most touchie calls are wrong....bless em.

There is nothing worse than seeing a try called back for a "forward" pass after great skill shown to get there.

Aargh.

[ism22]

Rant:

I don't get it... only shot clock I know is in basketball and it's called a shot clock because you're given x amount of time to shoot. Of course, in basketball you already stop the clock when there's a penalty/stoppage... and maybe that's really what the NRL wants rather than a 'shot clock'.

IMO this 'shot clock' has no purpose and should be scrapped. The name doesn't suit its function either.

[Johnny Tobin]

"Forward passes". The rules are simple - if the ball leaves the hands flat or backward relative to the hands of the passer it is legal.

But you hear so many commentators still saying things like "oh look, he passed it on the 40 metre line and the guy caught it AT LEAST 2 metres in front of him!!"

The physics of trajectory motion escape many people, including unfortunately many of our match officials. If you are running at 20 km/hr and pass the ball flat, the ball will keep going forward at 20 km/hr. If there's some distance between the passer and receiver the ball will travel A LONG WAY forward relative to the ground.

The incorrect forward pass calls will always be more likely when the passer is stopped dead in his tracks by the defence as he passes or, as with Friend in this case, he runs back after passing.

What I don't understand is why this area is exempted from video referee adjudication. What is the reason exactly? Because if the above principles are applied I don't see how they could get this any more wrong than the hundreds of other things they deliberate obsessively over.

Me? I still say scrap the video ref altogether and live with the on field call for better or worse. It will never happen though, Colonel Sanders wouldn't allow it.

How can they rule on knock ons and not forward passes?

I think they should be able to transpose some kind of grid on the screen that will show whether the ball went backwards from the hands or not.

Video Ref for ingoal tryscoring situations only for mine.