Tony Archer and his press statements

[Tommy Smith]

Has anyone seen any comments re the Parra/Titans game on Thur. Some real howlers in that mainly from the bunker.
Insufficient evidence my ass, insufficient intelligence more like it

The Radradra "try" was the worst call I've ever seen.

He knocked on... 3 TIMES... but "insufficient evidence" Patten said.

FMD if that decides a finals game...

[The Thracian]

The Radradra "try" was the worst call I've ever seen.

He knocked on... 3 TIMES... but "insufficient evidence" Patten said.

FMD if that decides a finals game...

Joke of a decision, we seem the exact same play 3 times over the weekend by the video ref and on field guys, they have lost the plot

[Spirit of 66]

The referee shouldn't "have an opinion" if they choose to send a call upstairs.

Call it or send it. It over complicates things.

That reminds me...

With the penalty try decision in the Melbourne game, why did that go to the video ref at all? No conventional try was scored - we knew that - so it was just down to the referee believing the try would have been scored had the Melbourne player not been taken out. He made that call by signalling a try, so what was the video ref going to do? Even if he had another opinion about whether a penalty try was warranted, he could not over-rule the field ref.

[Monaco's Fan Club]

JWH will be cleared with an early plea. Maybe that was the NRL saying oops.

[Bondicigar]

The NRL would probably disgaree, but any competition that allows for a blatant error like last night is a joke.

there is no excuse for it.

Can someone please explain to me why the bunker cant rule on a forward pass. One replay and how could it be anything but forward

[player 1]

That reminds me...

With the penalty try decision in the Melbourne game, why did that go to the video ref at all? No conventional try was scored - we knew that - so it was just down to the referee believing the try would have been scored had the Melbourne player not been taken out. He made that call by signalling a try, so what was the video ref going to do? Even if he had another opinion about whether a penalty try was warranted, he could not over-rule the field ref.

You're just one of those KFC (Kentucky Fried Conspiracy) theorists.

[Headless Chook]

Can someone please explain to me why the bunker cant rule on a forward pass. One replay and how could it be anything but forward

Because back in the old days when they did rule on forward passes they did not have as many camera angles to get a true picture of whether the pass was forward. If it was brought in, then nearly every try would be sent upstairs. As I said earlier in the thread, I can live with a ref missing a forward pass or knock on. That's human error, it's when the idiot in the bunker has 10 looks at it and gets it wrong that annoys me

[Waylander]

Can someone please explain to me why the bunker cant rule on a forward pass. One replay and how could it be anything but forward

Because the camera angles don't necessarily allow for them to make a call as to whether the ball was passed forward or not.

So your next question should be, then why are they able to rule on a knock-on? Good question. Don't know.

[RoosterFanNZ]

since they can't rule on forward passes it frustrate me how they can check for offsides from the bunkers with out using graphics, like a straight line across the field like they use in football or NFL. Seem to remember a few offside calls like start of the year and the try vs panthers last year. the NRL seem to like a big fuss about all the stuff they've added to help the game, but they're not used properly or thought out enough so it just creates more issues than it started with.

[hackthefortress]

They can't rule on forward passes because a ball throw backwards actually travels forwards if a player is running when the ball is thrown, momentum. This video shows the practical example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

If a player is stopped as the ball is thrown, it appears to go forwards even though it was backwards out of the hands. It's such a tough one to call, especially with video because of the angles, which is why the bunker can't rule on them. I agree the one of the weekend was forward but was missed, bad luck we have had our share of these missed as well (Friendy from dummy half a few times a game).

As for the bunker ruling on offside, this isn't a problem. There is no physics involved, just be behind the kicker. Now I agree there should be some virtual line that should be drawn on screen to review, but unfortunately we don't know if they actually do have one or not. It makes sense that they would. Its just a matter of whether or not it appears on the broadcast.

[Bondicigar]

Because the camera angles don't necessarily allow for them to make a call as to whether the ball was passed forward or not.

So your next question should be, then why are they able to rule on a knock-on? Good question. Don't know.

Yeah i get that but sometimes the angle is good and the pass is clearly forward. Why not rule on those that are bleeding odvious. I guess that would be using common sense and we all know that was outlawed long ago.

[theGman]

The referee shouldn't "have an opinion" if they choose to send a call upstairs.

Call it or send it. It over complicates things.

Precisely Jack.

Sometimes the ref genuinely has NFI and is "forced to" unnecessarily make a decision under extreme pressure. Keep it simple without so much scrutiny or repercussions........let the vidiots review/assess with the benefit of technology.

[ism22]

The referee shouldn't "have an opinion" if they choose to send a call upstairs.

Call it or send it. It over complicates things.

The alternative was 'benefit of the doubt' and nobody liked that either (although that still required an opinion).

I've never understood why it isn't an honest 'I HAVE NO IDEA!!!' call.

My suspicion is that they want it to mimic a legal/administrative decision making process where you're appealing a point of law to a higher decision making body rather than asking for all the facts to be re-examined. For this to happen, you need a decision. Saying 'I have NFI' could leave the bunker in a position where they are like 'well we don't have the right angle either... who makes the call?' While it often s*x, I think the essence is that the ref makes the decision real-time and then asks the bunker to look for conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was wrong. If there isn't, then the on-field decision stands (which to be fair, woulda been the real-time decision if there was no bunker at all).

[mightyrooster]

The alternative was 'benefit of the doubt' and nobody liked that either (although that still required an opinion).

I've never understood why it isn't an honest 'I HAVE NO IDEA!!!' call.

My suspicion is that they want it to mimic a legal/administrative decision making process where you're appealing a point of law to a higher decision making body rather than asking for all the facts to be re-examined. For this to happen, you need a decision. Saying 'I have NFI' could leave the bunker in a position where they are like 'well we don't have the right angle either... who makes the call?' While it often s*x, I think the essence is that the ref makes the decision real-time and then asks the bunker to look for conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was wrong. If there isn't, then the on-field decision stands (which to be fair, woulda been the real-time decision if there was no bunker at all).

I think they want to go with the 'live' decision. That is they want the refs to make the call because that is what they are there for. The bunker is there to overturn the 'howler'. So if it's not a clear howler of a decision, it goes with the ref's call and we just have to live with it. The problem is when the refs have no idea. They are forced to make a call and if there's no strong evidence to overturn that call then we are left with the ref's choice, which is what we would have had if there was no bunker anyway.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

The alternative was 'benefit of the doubt' and nobody liked that either (although that still required an opinion).

I've never understood why it isn't an honest 'I HAVE NO IDEA!!!' call.

My suspicion is that they want it to mimic a legal/administrative decision making process where you're appealing a point of law to a higher decision making body rather than asking for all the facts to be re-examined. For this to happen, you need a decision. Saying 'I have NFI' could leave the bunker in a position where they are like 'well we don't have the right angle either... who makes the call?' While it often s*x, I think the essence is that the ref makes the decision real-time and then asks the bunker to look for conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was wrong. If there isn't, then the on-field decision stands (which to be fair, woulda been the real-time decision if there was no bunker at all).

Basically we get to two sources (ref and bunker) both having NFI and the first guess (the decision) is used as a nice comfy safety net for the officials.