Through green eyes: The unconsciousness of bias

[Manbush]

One way to reduce the confirmation bias is through technology, gps and sensors on the balls, field, players etc, a lot of the contentious data would then become black and white.

[Matt]

One way to reduce the confirmation bias is through technology, gps and sensors on the balls, field, players etc, a lot of the contentious data would then become black and white.

And to get rid of the interpretation/ grey rules.

[Roger Kenworthy]

Pretty low sledge resorting to EDIT.. Not the first time I've seen it from you

Dude it was a joke, from Seinfeld, that's where "pigman" is from.

Pigman is actually the mating ritual of Nick.

[Woodgers]

GE, I thought it was a decent article, thought provoking and has received at least 4 pages of comments on a discussion forum. You haven't wasted any time providing some information that most of us wouldn't have known, and a comparison to other sports. So thanks for that.

The hard part with this discussion is, I know what I see each week across multiple games including ours, but it is hard to prove or articulate it. The best I can keep coming up with is simply that in the Raiders case (and we're possibly on equal footing with the Warriors here), whether it be the officials on game day or the media or the blokes churning out the tv schedule, putting the Raiders at disadvantage comes with the least amount of consequences and backlash. We're the easy target. People will be able to point out that we haven't been a good side for a long time, and we've been run like a shambles under McIntyre and all those sorts of things that contribute, but no matter how good we are we're still not a team from the major metropolitan markets.....and we're not on C9 with more eyes watching, and the owners of the game don't have a share in our club he says bitterly.

As I said earlier, the only time we ever seem to get any sort of penalty on game day is if it is plain as day, we extremely rarely get any where you scratch your head and think 'what's that for?', but we seem to concede them regularly. The 10 metres is easiest to see where the officials can pick and choose what they want to blow and what they don't but at the ground you could see the refs telling the Cowboys to get onside pretty regularly when they weren't, but they kept choosing to play on.

Also, take the Video Ref. I cannot tell you how many times i've seen a potential try of ours referred up there, then we have a couple of looks, I do my usual cross-check 'would I be happy for it to be given at the other end - yes or no' and thought this has to be a try for all money, or at least better than 50/50, for it to be not given. Now, people can ridicule me or call me a whinger but I find it not inconceivable that if you were a VR, you wouldn't feel more pressure taking that try in the exact scenario off Brisbane or Canterbury, rather than the Raiders? It's just the way it is, there are less consequences if you get it wrong against the Raiders, than virtually everyone else besides the Warriors IMO. I see the same happening out of the field fairly regularly. Not every week, and again I want to reiterate that I am not one that tries to scrutinise the life out of the refs and their calls because I know it isn't always easy, but if they can't find one penalty for offside against the Cowboys from the 35th to the 70th minute when anyone at the ground will tell you half the line or more were at least pretty regularly, it should be called either unconscious bias or outright incompetence. Take you pick there.

[Botman]

It's now page four and you're up to being well versed in unconscious bias... OK... Which post to date has indicated that? You have simply been responding to any evidence or sensible argument by abuse, ridicule and aggression.

Your post suggests you are not well versed in the concepts. Everyone has biases. My post acknowledged that, and this was the very point of the first paragraph of the thread, and the whole post. You need to be aware of them, both conscious and unconscious. I'm no doubt consciously biased to the Raiders at times, perhaps many times, (which is not such a great sin or has great consequence) and unconsciously. The point of the thread is to make sure you understand both, and take actions in relation to them.

Given I don't make decisions in NRL games, my biases to the Raiders probably don't count for an awful lot, but I certainly did my best to be balanced in the article.

The point of the article is that those who do make decisions in NRL games should be aware of the potential for unconscious bias and all the dimensions of it. I suspect they are not, and their performance could be significantly improved if they were.

There is plenty of posts responding to the evidence, no point in me rehashing them.
As you and others have said, everyone has bias. Until we are refereed by robots, we simply aren’t going to change that. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. And to the point, as you point out in the thread, it’s prevalent in all games, every week. It’s not something that is confined to our games. And perhaps if you didn’t want this to turn into a referendum on “The NRL doesn’t want the Raiders to win games” you shouldn’t have framed it exclusively around the Canberra Raiders. Bias, conscious or unconscious is not the reason we are consistently losing football games.

You’re point about the NRL needing to be aware of this matter and act accordingly is correct, but where you lose the plot is when you and others try to extrapolate that into some sort of irrefutable evidence that our football club is being unfairly disadvantaged on a weekly basis by this, or even more laughably, those of which who actually believe referees are going out there with intent to favour the other side.
It’s a bridge too far and is not supported by any evidence other than the subjective evidence of perceived poor calls against us by people who have a clear conscious and unconscious bias.

I’m not ridiculing the hard evidence, I’m ridiculing the way you’ve used this and added in subjective things like penalty counts to justify your conspiracy theory, i honestly don’t think you’re being reasonable or balanced at all when it comes to presenting this issue in relation to the Canberra Raiders. You could be forgiven for thinking parts of that article were actually intended to parody the point being made. Like you go to huge lengths to accept your own bias, try to bring a factual slant to this issue and then spend half the article talking about completely subjective incidents in which you are clearly not being balanced about. You made some very fair and valid points, and then you under pin them by citing things that completely take away from the credibility of what you’re trying to do.

I can’t help but think you’d have been better off posting this article as a general point of interest, instead of trying to link them with some kind of disadvantage the Raiders have.

QUOTE: But was it really that different to dozens of other tackles in the match? If it was "late" it was surely a split second. He is the second most penalised player in the competition (behind Ryan James on 24). Is he really that poorly disciplined?

My response: Let me clarify this for you, this is your bias at work. Points like this, framed as questions but where the inference is clear do not help you appear balanced.
It was late, it was different to dozens of other tackles in the match. He is the 2nd most penalised played in the competition because he is poorly disciplined in the ruck. That’s the truth of the matter. I mean you can expect Shaun Fensom to attract more penalties than most, because he makes a lot more tackles than most. So he’s putting himself in position to be pinged more than others, and the nature of officiating is they sometimes give ticky tacky penalties and of course Fensom gets more of them then most too, because again, he’s in the position to get them. But you can go and ask any non Raiders fan what they think of Shaun Fensom and they will tell you he is a penalty magnet. His reputation as an ill disciplined footballer is well earned.

QUOTE: At another point in the match, Johnathan Thurston races up to the referee to complain about a knock on call, which the referee made against the Cowboys. He's assured by the referee that it will be reviewed on video before the scrum packs. In dozens of other instances this year, the player is waved away. One Raiders fan described it as a "captain's challenge"... despite the fact that is only permitted in the Under 20s competition... Why do the referees listen to a captain like Johnathan Thurston, but not Jarrod Croker?

My response: This one is interesting, but there is two points to consider here. First and foremost, the correct call was eventually made. So it’s hard to get too upset about something going against us, when it really didn’t actually go against us at all. Secondly, and im not 100% sure on this, but i believe the referee’s are allowed to review in this instances. The only time they are allowed to review and over turn calls is in the case of a stoppage in play, when considering double knock-on’s? I think i heard that explained on one of the telecasts a few weeks ago. Now i’ve seen plenty of players get waved away, including JT himself.

As for why a captain like JT is being listened to more than Croker, i have a few thoughts... Firstly, he’s a superstar of the game, superstar calls will always be a part of sport, every sport, whilst human’s are refereeing. It’s one of the reasons you really want superstars, it’s why Sam Burgess got penalties almost every time he lost the ball, regardless of a hand being in there or not. Yes it’s bias, but that’s just the nature of sport and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

Also that’s part of being a good captain, being able to earn the ear of the a referee, Croker is in his first year as captain, our last 2 long serving captains were widely known as absolute whingers of the highest order, none more so than Terry Campese. Campese’s habit of being in the ear of the officials all game, i believe is still impacting us today. We’ve had a reputation of being sooks for some time, and naturally, being human, referees have spent most of their careers going into our games knowing they have to tune our captain out because he just never shuts up. Croker is going to need more than half a year to change our reputation (again, a well earned one too) here.


You go on then to post some stats on penalty counts... Which frankly, is completely pointless. Unless you’re going to break down those counts and explain how many of them were incorrect and correct, and then count the times penalties should have been awarded that weren’t, then what good are they? Now i understand you have a job, and you probably don’t have the time or inclination to go back game by game, looking at all the penalties and do that. And nor do i think it would be any good if you did it anyways because of the very issue you have raised in this thread. Penalties are almost always subjective, very few “mandatory” penalties in games. You say we’re getting screwed here by bias... i think it’s more likely you’ve interpreted them a certain way due to your own bias.



QUOTE: Raiders' fans are not the only ones frustrated. After the loss to the Brisbane Broncos, Raiders coach Ricky Stuart refused to answer more than one question, saying he didn't want to say something he'd regret. It was obvious he would be saying something about the refereeing - and he did so later. He and the Raiders were fined $20,000 for five breaches of NRL rules, most importantly, for making comments that implied criticism of the referees.

The common reaction in Sydney was: "What's he complaining about? There weren't any refereeing howlers in that match!?". Those who were more in the know pointed out it was the culmination of weeks of refereeing calls which Stuart regarded as wrong.

My response: Again, i think you’re being a bit ridiculous here. You say Stuart was fined 20k for five breaches of NRL rules. But then a line later state “importantly, for making comments that implied criticism of the referees”... really? I think most importantly he was fined for not fulfilling his media commitments during the game and post game, for banning his players from doing so. There was 5 reasons, i would argue strongly that the most important aspect of the fine was not the 1 reason of 5 which was arguable, but the more important aspect of the fine was the 4 of 5 which were completely and totally irrefutable.

QUOTE: The NRL has long had in place protocols which prohibit comment from coaches that cast doubt on the referees' integrity. Fair enough too. But for 2015, the NRL went a step further, preventing coaches from commenting at all about referees. It is an indication how sensitive the NRL has become about any comments about the standard of refereeing. It's hardly a healthy situation, with the only scrutiny of refereeing done behind closed doors.

The referees' boss Tony Archer occasionally appears after a "howler" and admits the decision was wrong. But those occasions are few and far between. For the most part, he explains how the referees were right all along. For example, it was claimed a try to Raiders captain Jarrod Croker was correctly disallowed for a "double movement" - despite the fact Croker was never "held" when the ball or arm carrying the ball was on the ground. It was an interpretation that baffled most rugby league experts and spectators alike.

They have developed their KPIs and interpretations to the point where they no longer make sense to anyone who has grown up with the game. The Jarrod Croker "no try" is the classic case in point. It was claimed that because an opposition player was tumbling over the top of him, he was "held". No rugby league supporter calls that "held", but the referees do. When I was young, a great tackle which dislodged the ball was rewarded. These days it's called a knock on by the defender.

My response: I completely agree regarding the situation on the officials. No one wants the coaches calling them cheats, or implying anything untoward, but the NRL has fostered a situation where there does seem to be a lack of accountability. This is the type of point that we SHOULD be discussing more. And then i read the next line and i can’t help but feel exacerbated by this one step forward, one step back nature of this article.

The reason Croker was denied a try is because of the way in which the rules are, not because of bias, not because of some agenda against the Raiders. The video referee is only allowed to go by the book. The on field referee can make his judgement calls on things like when a tackle is complete. The video ref has to go by the book, which is ball carrying arm on the ground, with a defender touching him. Which is what happened, it’s the same rule that has made the “voluntary tackle” go the way of the dodo. If the ball carrier has hit the deck, with his ball carrying arm touching the ground, and he’s touched, the tackle is deemed complete.
By that definition, and that is all the VR is allowed to go off, it was a no try. The issue here is clearly not allowing the VR to make his own judgement call. It’s an issue with the rules, nothing to do with bias. I don’t even really know what this has to do with bias. And it detracts from what you are trying to convey.


QUOTE: They have developed their coaching/tip sheets to the point where some players - like Shaun Fensom - are penalised for things that others are not. Because Shaun Fensom is on the tip sheet.

But a lot of their problem is that they are not conscious of their unconscious biases. These are not in any way deliberate. They are not recognised by the referees. I think their performance would improve - possibly by a lot - if they recognised the potential for their unrecognised bias..... (then you post some good studies on bias)

Do the Raiders lack the same home ground advantage as other teams, and receive less favourable treatment by the referees, because their crowds are amongst the lowest in the NRL? Or because they're a team from outside Sydney?
It's food for thought. And something the NRL referees might do well to think more about. And make sure their processes don't accentuate the unrecognised biases, rather than accentuate them.


Here we go with a few steps forward.
I have been as vocal against the tip sheets as anyone. This is a point, in terms of what you are trying to say, you should have spoken more about. The tip sheets i have absolutely no doubt contribute to many incorrect calls. It needs to stop. Referee’s shouldn’t be game-planning for a game at all. They should be fit enough to keep up with the game, knowledgeable about the rules and ref what they see. Creating tip sheets simply gives the officials something to look forward and once you’re looking for something specifically, you’ll find it eventually, whether it’s there or not.

I’m going to ignore the 2nd to last question but i feel like you made some really good steps forward in this final part, and i want to try to ignore the fact you wandered back into tin foil hat territory.
The last line is 100% and this article would have served you better if you stuck strictly to those processes, things like the captains challenge for JT, things like the tip sheets, things like the reactive and protective nature of the officials and lack of transparency etc. Because those are fair and valid arguments that are indeed food for thought and something all RL fans should be talking about, and something the NRL really does need to look at.
The trouble is you didn’t, you continued to try and draw this thing back to your belief that our club being unfairly targeted, consciously or not, and are being held back by it. You shoe horned the Canberra Raiders into this entire thing and it completely over shadowed the points you were making.

[Shadow Boxer]

Good to get back and find pigman having an inane argument of attrition with everyone. Makes me feel I'm home again.

I didn't see the game but if JT really got the refs to send a scrum feed to the video refs and got a decision overturned that is an outrageous call given what we've seen this season.

[Matt]

Having read this Piggy, esp. the Video ref going by the book stuff.
What is the difference between the Croker 'No Try' and the Ben Hunt 'Try' the following week? And where do you stand on it?

I know this is a 1 off call, but its 1 of quite a few for us this yr. Where we have been called 1 way, only for another team to have it called a different way, during a game, in following games or in following weeks.

As far as I see it, both players were on the ground with the ball at 1 time in the movement, touched by an opposition player. Both players then got to their feet and planted the ball. Now Croker's was more of a 'all in 1 motion roll and dive', while Hunt had to stand and run 10m-ish. Croker was probably touched by fingers or a hand, while Hunt had 3 Sea Eagles in the pile to try and pick up the ball.

For me, either both are a try or neither are. 'By the book', would suggest the latter, as both players were on the ground touched by an opponent. Remembering the tackled rule only requires the opposition to touch you while you are on the ground to constitute a tackle.

[Matt]

Good to get back and find pigman having an inane argument of attrition with everyone. Makes me feel I'm home again.

I didn't see the game but if JT really got the refs to send a scrum feed to the video refs and got a decision overturned that is an outrageous call given what we've seen this season.

I was under the impression that the video couldn't overrule anything that wasn't a penalty. I know Piggy said that they could get involved in stoppages, but I thought the complaint was 'they should be able to, but cant'??? So, Im confused.

Its worth noting that this happened at least once more over the weekend. Cant remember which game I was watching, Titans or Sharks, but the scrum feed was reversed.

[Seiffert82]

Hard to argue that certain players like Smith and Thurston don't get the BOTD more often than not. There is an unconscious bias IMO. It didn't cost us that game, but it certainly didn't help.

[Shadow Boxer]

Good to get back and find pigman having an inane argument of attrition with everyone. Makes me feel I'm home again.

I didn't see the game but if JT really got the refs to send a scrum feed to the video refs and got a decision overturned that is an outrageous call given what we've seen this season.

I was under the impression that the video couldn't overrule anything that wasn't a penalty. I know Piggy said that they could get involved in stoppages, but I thought the complaint was 'they should be able to, but cant'??? So, Im confused.

Its worth noting that this happened at least once more over the weekend. Cant remember which game I was watching, Titans or Sharks, but the scrum feed was reversed.

Really ? Sounds like they have opened a can of worms there.

[Matt]

Good to get back and find pigman having an inane argument of attrition with everyone. Makes me feel I'm home again.

I didn't see the game but if JT really got the refs to send a scrum feed to the video refs and got a decision overturned that is an outrageous call given what we've seen this season.

I was under the impression that the video couldn't overrule anything that wasn't a penalty. I know Piggy said that they could get involved in stoppages, but I thought the complaint was 'they should be able to, but cant'??? So, Im confused.

Its worth noting that this happened at least once more over the weekend. Cant remember which game I was watching, Titans or Sharks, but the scrum feed was reversed.

Really ? Sounds like they have opened a can of worms there.

Yep. I remember the commentators saying something. They were surprised/ confused too. I think the problem is, no one seems to know when and if they can be involved. As I said, I thought it was only penalty related incidents, but if its any stoppage, they need to get their act together and be clearer as to when they can be involved.

[Botman]

Having read this Piggy, esp. the Video ref going by the book stuff.
What is the difference between the Croker 'No Try' and the Ben Hunt 'Try' the following week? And where do you stand on it?

Link?

[Matt]

Having read this Piggy, esp. the Video ref going by the book stuff.
What is the difference between the Croker 'No Try' and the Ben Hunt 'Try' the following week? And where do you stand on it?

Link?

Ill see what I can do.

[Matt]

Hunt Try

This is Rd 13. Play begins at about the 1.05 mark. If you listen to Gus *shudder*, he queries it, then says 'im happy, get on with it'. Which I actually believe is wrong.

Croker No Try

This is Rd 10. Play begins at about 0.25 mark (its the 1st play of the highlights)

[The Nickman]

Good post up there, Nicko

Couldn't agree more

[Botman]

That's an interesting one, my best guess would be that the referee's felt that the ball was loose and no clear possession had been obtained at the time Hunt's ball carrying arm was on the deck... if you dont have possession, you cant be called held.
Did the official indicate try? (i cant watch vids at work with noise out without incurring the wrath of my manager)
If he did, i cant see any way they can over rule it. That being said, if he said no try, then i also dont see how they could over rule it.

Croker's was ruled a NO TRY, wasn't it?

[Matt]

That's an interesting one, my best guess would be that the referee's felt that the ball was loose and no clear possession had been obtained at the time Hunt's ball carrying arm was on the deck... if you dont have possession, you cant be called held.
Did the official indicate try? (i cant watch vids at work with noise out without incurring the wrath of my manager)
If he did, i cant see any way they can over rule it. That being said, if he said no try, then i also dont see how they could over rule it.

Croker's was ruled a NO TRY, wasn't it?

Neither show the refs call. However, the ref calls play on in the Bronx one, so I assume he said try. I remember watching it, and 'calling it' on the GH thread that Friday night, and im sure if someone trawled through the respective game day GH thread they would be able to find out.

For me, the best shot of the Hunt one is from the angle that looks like its coming from under the posts. He has the ball tucked under his arm, and there are at least 2 Manly players arms on him. That's a tackle. Therefore, no try, and I guess double movement, or is it moving off the mark given he had to run 10m?

[Botman]

Im not 100% sure but i think the on field ref called TRY for Hunt, and No Try for Croker
And i think the video ref stayed with those calls because they felt there wasnt enough to over turn it.
From what i can see, the time you have Hunt with clear possession and hands on him, his ball carrying arm isnt on the ground. So that's probably why play on was the call.

But these are both fairly unique situations, it's not very often you see tries like that scored.

If it were me making the call, i'd be happy if both were awarded or both were ruled No Try and Hunt and Croker were asked to go back to the spot and play the ball.
But these are pretty close calls, genuine 50/50's.
I dont think either is an egregious error, that warrants inclusion in a debate about bias impacting games and disadvantaging the Raiders.

[Matt]

Fair enough.

I would still call these like for like decisions, I agree they are unique situations though. I think you are correct with the refs on field calls too. However, I believe that if 1 is a try, they both are, like wise, if 1 wasn't, the both weren't. I don't believe they can be separated as a 50/50 call.

I saw both tries live, and on replay. Live Croker's looked like a try, however, on replay I can see the no try argument. Hunts live, I couldn't believe he wasn't tackled at the bottom of that pile, and on replay I still can't. I agree with you that the blurred line for the Hunt try is where is possession deemed to have been had, but even still, if you have dived on the ball, and you are on the ground, and there are 2 or 3 opponents touching you, I cant see how you aren't tackled the instant you touch/ possess the ball. If you can score a try by having a hand on the ball, surely possession, when the ball is on the ground, is the same.

Just before you ask, I was filthy about the Croker no try at the time, and for the few days after, got over it, then saw the Hunt try, and the rage returned. This is the kind of stuff people are complaining about. These decisions aren't howlers, because they are unique and on the edge of the rules. I do believe they should be in this debate, as its a Raiders 'non-call' vs a Bronco 'call', it what appears to be like for like. Its part of that consistency of reffing as far as im concerned.

[The Nickman]

You see they're not like for like decisions because of one very important factor: one referee called his decision a Try and the other said No Try.

I am so sick of the video ref overturning decisions unless there's concrete evidence. The video should only be there to overturn the "howler", where the onfield ref misses something blindingly obvious. Otherwise we absolutely should always go with the onfield ref's interpretation of the situation.

And for that reason, and that reason alone, the officials got both decisions 100% correct in my opinion.

[Fair Cop]

I'm willing to concede just to end the essay competition. Fair dinkum I think you better have a lie down.

[pickles]

There was another one in a game over the weekend I think where a player got up to run again and the defender was still holding on to his jumper, resulted in a try but I was surprised. These situations are pretty rare so hard to draw any major conclusions from.

What it does highlight is the importance of how a situation is referred to the video ref in the first place. There are often calls where given the footage available and the position of the referee it is clear they are having a best guess at what happened and the video ref supports this. It would be a difficult thing to look at due to the number of variables but across the NRL it seems that there is a difference in how potential tries are called by the on field ref depending on the team and where there isn't clear evidence to over rule the on field decision stands.

I'm sure that refs have KPIs around this but I think it between 4 on field officials they aren't sure then the advantage should go towards the attacking team. At the moment it is a roll of the dice. Either that or an option for refs to say that they were unsighted and are unable to make a ruling.

The other thing that is impossible to quantify are the non-decisions and I am certain these are not included in the refs 94% of decisions they got right. The 2 clear areas where this happens a lot is offside and in the ruck. Unfortunately these areas can have a massive impact on the momentum of the game if they are not applied consistently are they rarely are. Normally over the course of a game there are an arbitrary number of these penalties given to either team. A percentage of them are quite clear cut but there are usually similar plays at different times that are let go. Also when a team receives these makes a difference. A penalty late in the tackle count is much more valuable for the attacking team that a first tackle penalty and with the structure in defence so solid a quick play of the ball is incredibly important.

There has never been consistency in these areas of the game. Back in the day you could always count on a few early penalties early in the first half to set the ground rules and then generally speaking, things were allowed to flow barring blatant infringements. It's a massive grey area in the game and almost impossible to address.

I also think that refereeing has been highlighted due to how close a lot of games are. It would be interesting to see what percentage of games over the years have been decided by less than a converted try and whether or not there are more close games but anecdotally there seems to be more which in turn puts the spotlight on refereeing decisions.

[The Nickman]

That's the thing, pickles. The video ref is supposed to be there to eliminate the howlers, or times where the refs get something blatantly wrong (as all humans will).

But it happens FAR too often where the video ref will overturn the onfield ref on a 50/50 call based mainly on their interpretation of the situation. I absolutely HATE that and believe it's complicated the crap out of the whole process.

Anyway, none of this has to do with the Canberra Raiders, we're simply not losing games because of the refs, that's just superstitious nonsense

[Please]

When has anyone ever been sin binned for that kind of act?


this is **** great. Genuinely **** great.

I'm sorry for having a differing opinion to yours, on the Internet of all places! Wow, who would have thought people on the Internet would have a different opinion.

It's a professional foul champ. I guess that's why the Sportsbet Twitter account was saying something similar? Through their green eyes too? Would take a ref with balls to do it though. Yes Blake was lucky not to go himself but he didn't use a shoulder on the bloke in the air which has potential for a pretty dangerous position.

Well, if it was on Twitter, it must be true!

[Matt]

That's the thing, pickles. The video ref is supposed to be there to eliminate the howlers, or times where the refs get something blatantly wrong (as all humans will).

But it happens FAR too often where the video ref will overturn the onfield ref on a 50/50 call based mainly on their interpretation of the situation. I absolutely HATE that and believe it's complicated the crap out of the whole process.

Anyway, none of this has to do with the Canberra Raiders, we're simply not losing games because of the refs, that's just superstitious nonsense

This is one of the major issues in the NRL rule book. GET RID OF RULES THAT REQUIRE IT! The rules need to be black and white, because with interpretation you get a different decision week to week.

[Please]

And for the record. Austin was offside.

[pickles]

That's the thing, pickles. The video ref is supposed to be there to eliminate the howlers, or times where the refs get something blatantly wrong (as all humans will).

But it happens FAR too often where the video ref will overturn the onfield ref on a 50/50 call based mainly on their interpretation of the situation. I absolutely HATE that and believe it's complicated the crap out of the whole process.

Anyway, none of this has to do with the Canberra Raiders, we're simply not losing games because of the refs, that's just superstitious nonsense

I've already said clearly that I don't think there is any conspiracy against the Raiders and that refereeing isn't costing us games. On the whole I think we have the talent to win games but not the experience in key positions to come up with the clutch plays that make a difference in those really close games. I am also fairly satisfied with the way the team is developing and if we can continue to build we can be threat over the coming years. It's frustrating to have lost a few close games but that's footy, especially with an inexperienced squad.

I think the video ref consistency would be improved by a bunker system where the same group were making decisions on every game. Sounds like it has been trialled with promising results so hopefully they look to that for next season. It's one reason I would like to see a captains challenge introduced. Put the onus on the players to identify the howlers and make a decision about it, still allow the video ref to check scoring plays would remove a lot of the grey area about when they are involved and when they aren't at least!

In terms of complication the refs have made it worse for themselves by layering interpretation after interpretation on what are essentially very simple rules. A fine example is surrender tackles, dominant etc. it seems to have been let slide now thankfully but how hard is it to call held and expect the defenders to get off?

[Matt]

That's the thing, pickles. The video ref is supposed to be there to eliminate the howlers, or times where the refs get something blatantly wrong (as all humans will).

But it happens FAR too often where the video ref will overturn the onfield ref on a 50/50 call based mainly on their interpretation of the situation. I absolutely HATE that and believe it's complicated the crap out of the whole process.

Anyway, none of this has to do with the Canberra Raiders, we're simply not losing games because of the refs, that's just superstitious nonsense

I've already said clearly that I don't think there is any conspiracy against the Raiders and that refereeing isn't costing us games. On the whole I think we have the talent to win games but not the experience in key positions to come up with the clutch plays that make a difference in those really close games. I am also fairly satisfied with the way the team is developing and if we can continue to build we can be threat over the coming years. It's frustrating to have lost a few close games but that's footy, especially with an inexperienced squad.

I think the video ref consistency would be improved by a bunker system where the same group were making decisions on every game. Sounds like it has been trialled with promising results so hopefully they look to that for next season. It's one reason I would like to see a captains challenge introduced. Put the onus on the players to identify the howlers and make a decision about it, still allow the video ref to check scoring plays would remove a lot of the grey area about when they are involved and when they aren't at least!

In terms of complication the refs have made it worse for themselves by layering interpretation after interpretation on what are essentially very simple rules. A fine example is surrender tackles, dominant etc. it seems to have been let slide now thankfully but how hard is it to call held and expect the defenders to get off?

Well said

[papabear]

tbh I think the hunt try and croker try is cherry picking examples, both 50:50 calls and in fact I thought ours was more of a try then the broncos.

That said by the lette rof the law, even if he isn't held the first time when he is one the ground (passing the ball of the ground) the second time he goes at it there is a hand on his back with him on the ground. IMO clear as day held.

The broncos are the best reffed side in the comp, and more it is a travesty because they are **** boring. They are like st George Illawarra of 2011 or whenever they won the thing. Wayne Bennett boring rugby league at its finest.

[Matt]

tbh I think the hunt try and croker try is cherry picking examples, both 50:50 calls and in fact I thought ours was more of a try then the broncos.

That said by the lette rof the law, even if he isn't held the first time when he is one the ground (passing the ball of the ground) the second time he goes at it there is a hand on his back with him on the ground. IMO clear as day held.

The broncos are the best reffed side in the comp, and more it is a travesty because they are **** boring. They are like st George Illawarra of 2011 or whenever they won the thing. Wayne Bennett boring rugby league at its finest.

Disagree with the 50/50 (only that they are 50/50), but agree with the rest.

[BJ]

And for the record. Austin was offside.

Can you post an image showing this as my high def screen and pause button doesn't share your view. However if you use the word "record" maybe you mean vinyl LP and you are watching and pausing a replay on your Betamax.

[Toviii]

I completely understand the need some feel to remove themselves from the rest of us here at the asylum, but to definitely state that Austin was offside is some sort of bizarre display of reverse bias, the point of which I cannot say. All the evidence says that at worst it was a 50-50 call that went our way.

[Humphrey B Flaubert]

When has anyone ever been sin binned for that kind of act?


this is **** great. Genuinely **** great.

I'm sorry for having a differing opinion to yours, on the Internet of all places! Wow, who would have thought people on the Internet would have a different opinion.

It's a professional foul champ. I guess that's why the Sportsbet Twitter account was saying something similar? Through their green eyes too? Would take a ref with balls to do it though. Yes Blake was lucky not to go himself but he didn't use a shoulder on the bloke in the air which has potential for a pretty dangerous position.

So again. No one has ever got sin binned in like this before. Ever.
And your complaining they didnt break new ground to benefit us?

Ok

No. You miss the point, probably due to my green eye statement, I don't blame the refs for the loss or any of that. If that was Josh Reynolds, and not JT, I reckon he could have been binned, and I am sure there has been something similar over the years. But due to who it was, the unconscious bias that would be held towards JT because he is a top bloke and all that, would mean that it's simply a penalty and they wouldn't consider it any further. Similar to how Cameron Smith gets away with what he does, there is a bias, not a conscious one, but one that certainly exists.

[Matt]

I completely understand the need some feel to remove themselves from the rest of us here at the asylum, but to definitely state that Austin was offside is some sort of bizarre display of reverse bias, the point of which I cannot say. All the evidence says that at worst it was a 50-50 call that went our way.

Live at the ground it looked offside. All the replays make it look flat, line ball, 50/50, whichever phrase you prefer.

[Botman]

No. You miss the point, probably due to my green eye statement, I don't blame the refs for the loss or any of that. If that was Josh Reynolds, and not JT, I reckon he could have been binned, and I am sure there has been something similar over the years. But due to who it was, the unconscious bias that would be held towards JT because he is a top bloke and all that, would mean that it's simply a penalty and they wouldn't consider it any further. Similar to how Cameron Smith gets away with what he does, there is a bias, not a conscious one, but one that certainly exists.

That kind of thing has happened before, by people not named JT and they have never been sin binned for it.
It's really hard to accept your assertion that he wasnt binned because of bias when literally no one has ever been binned for that kind of act.

So just to clarify this, the fact that JT wasnt binned for an act that to the best of everyone memory here, no one has ever been binned for, is an example of unconscious bias?
Really? Really?

I... just... i mean... Are...
This is why we can't have nice things.