So Colless has to explain...

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Charlie
There's these new-fangled doo-hickeys at the footy now that weren't always there.

They're amazing things. They look like big movie screens, and what they do is let everybody in the stadium watch an action replay of what just happened.

Everybody at the ground saw what happened with the Voss 'free'. That includes the umpire.

At that point, the umpire knew he'd made the wrong call. But Voss still took his kick?

Why?

Because unlike Rugby League, there is no video official, and the umpires are not supposed to make rulings based on a replay.

The NRL is having all sorts of trouble at the moment because the video referee is getting too involved.

[sharpie]

It baffles me that the tribunal refuses to change so it is more like the NRL one. It is plain and clear for all to see that system is effective and simple to understand for players, officials and supporters alike.

[dread and might]

yeah we shouldn't be scared to take a good idea from another sport. they have the different gradings for an offence, the guilty plea option and they take into account prior form.

[Charlie]

Mike - I'm not saying there should be an official 'video ref'.

All I'm saying is that when the resource is there, USE IT. There was no possible reason why the ump couldn't have realised his mistake and withdrawn or reversed the free kick on Saturday night. The play had already stopped; there was no flow of play to interrupt. All he needed to do was look (which I'm confident he did) and see what 34,000 people saw at the ground.

[j0lly]

video umps would be a good idea but it would slow down the game heaps i reckon

[timthefish]

Originally posted by Charlie
All I'm saying is that when the resource is there, USE IT.

then you might as well introduce a video ref. once the on-field umpires make use of the screens they will be under a lot of pressure to keep doing so. players will start pointing at the screen or holding up the ball until the replay is shown.

the voss' free was a shocking decision, but reversing it in such an obvious reaction to the replay would be a very negative thing.

they should limit the screen to live play for those distant from the action and for positive things such as great marks, goals and one-percenters. replaying footage that contradicts the umpire does no good at all.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by liz
How can they not be aware of Lloyd's tendancy to over-emphasise contact and that Hall almost never does this.

this actually worked in barry's favour a number of times during the brisbane match when a tackle on him was established and should have been paid but he broke free and passed off the ball. if he had yielded one bit to the defender the tackle would have been more obvious and he would have got pinged. on at least two occasions it would have been holding the ball.

i'm by no means claiming he's on the positive side of the ledger with the umps, but it's not all woe and turmoil.

[liz]

Originally posted by timthefish
this actually worked in barry's favour a number of times during the brisbane match when a tackle on him was established and should have been paid but he broke free and passed off the ball. if he had yielded one bit to the defender the tackle would have been more obvious and he would have got pinged. on at least two occasions it would have been holding the ball.

Trying to break a tackle is an integral part of the game for players who have the strength to do it. If you take on the tackler and don't break through, fair enough that you get pinged but not sure why you would say that these tackles "should have been paid" but also say he "broke free".

[timthefish]

Originally posted by liz


Trying to break a tackle is an integral part of the game for players who have the strength to do it. If you take on the tackler and don't break through, fair enough that you get pinged but not sure why you would say that these tackles "should have been paid" but also say he "broke free".

my point is that the tackles could have been called well before he broke free, after a significant period of being held. they aren't so perhaps in these instances barry is getting the leeway he deserves from the referees.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by j0lly
video umps would be a good idea but it would slow down the game heaps i reckon

I have no idea why this is a problem. Lloyd can slow the game down for 3 and a half minutes to take a kick, FFS.

Everyone would be happy if the video ump had reversed that decision...even if it took him 2 minutes to do so.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by timthefish
my point is that the tackles could have been called well before he broke free, after a significant period of being held. they aren't so perhaps in these instances barry is getting the leeway he deserves from the referees.

Sorry but you're wrong, there...either a player is held or he is not. If anything, Bazza is given less leeway. He has been pinged a few times this year when he was not actually tackled, and a few times when he was tackled but had no prior opportunity...

Also tackles don't get paid unless there is prior opportunity to dispose of the ball......well that's the way the rule is written, anyway.

You seem to imply (like a Carlton supoporter) that laying a tackle should be (as the TV commentators say) "rewarded with a free."

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by timthefish
this actually worked in barry's favour a number of times during the brisbane match when a tackle on him was established and should have been paid but he broke free and passed off the ball. if he had yielded one bit to the defender the tackle would have been more obvious and he would have got pinged. on at least two occasions it would have been holding the ball.

i'm by no means claiming he's on the positive side of the ledger with the umps, but it's not all woe and turmoil.

That is the most ridiculous reasoning I've ever heard!

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by timthefish
my point is that the tackles could have been called well before he broke free, after a significant period of being held. they aren't so perhaps in these instances barry is getting the leeway he deserves from the referees.

Aaaaah now I understand your reasoning...

as soon as you mentioned the umps as being "referees"