www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/4073 SAINTS Chairman, Eamonn McManus, wrote in the Manchester Evening News today: It's nice to be sitting top of Super League with more than half the season now gone - particularly as we've been missing more than half the squad through injury in recent weeks. One thing that jumped out at me when comparing our last game against Salford to that of Wigan and Salford the week before was that the lack of a video referee at our game ( as it wasn't televised) resulted in far fewer stoppages and, resultantly, a much more exciting and entertaining game. One of the main reasons why soccer is the most popular game on the planet is that its key rules are few and are easily understood by all, resulting in a free flowing game with minimal stoppages. The same philosophy was adopted by rugby league, then the Northern Union, when it broke away from rugby union 120 years ago. League reduced the number of players on the pitch to 13 and rationalised the rules to produce the quicker and freer flowing game that we are proud of, and which rugby union still goes around in ever decreasing circles trying to achieve. It concerns me greatly then that we are in danger of undermining our game's greatest strength by according increasing levels of emphasis and importance to video referees. People pay to watch a game and its players, not its officials. The Super League refs, now adorned in fetching pink shirts, and with cameras plastered to their heads, look more like out-of-work Village People than professional officials. Meanwhile , the TV cameras are spending more time focused on the video refs putting on a Punch and Judy side show, than on the game that they are supposedly refereeing. There is now a stronger case to abolish video refereeing ( or severely limit it to critical decisions only ) than there is to increase its influence. Unfortunately, the latter is presently the case and it is prejudicing our game's greatest strengths : speed and continuity. The main show is becoming subsumed by a minor supporting act - it is nothing more than a job creation scheme. Let the referees referee and let them take the stick from the fans when they get it wrong - the rest of us do! That's sport and that's what they are paid for. They should be taking responsibility for their decisions and not referring near to every play to Punch and Judy. Let the game flow for the benefit of players and fans, who are the only people who count. Most importantly, let the refs assume the responsibility that their position of authority naturally and necessarily bestows upon them. At the moment it is a case of maximum authority with minimal responsibility - a dangerous combination in any walk of life.

www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/4073 SAINTS Chairman, Eamonn McManus, wrote in the Manchester Evening News today: It's nice to be sitting top of Super League with more than half the season now gone - particularly as we've been missing more than half the squad through injury in recent weeks. One thing that jumped out at me when comparing our last game against Salford to that of Wigan and Salford the week before was that the lack of a video referee at our game ( as it wasn't televised) resulted in far fewer stoppages and, resultantly, a much more exciting and entertaining game. One of the main reasons why soccer is the most popular game on the planet is that its key rules are few and are easily understood by all, resulting in a free flowing game with minimal stoppages. The same philosophy was adopted by rugby league, then the Northern Union, when it broke away from rugby union 120 years ago. League reduced the number of players on the pitch to 13 and rationalised the rules to produce the quicker and freer flowing game that we are proud of, and which rugby union still goes around in ever decreasing circles trying to achieve. It concerns me greatly then that we are in danger of undermining our game's greatest strength by according increasing levels of emphasis and importance to video referees. People pay to watch a game and its players, not its officials. The Super League refs, now adorned in fetching pink shirts, and with cameras plastered to their heads, look more like out-of-work Village People than professional officials. Meanwhile , the TV cameras are spending more time focused on the video refs putting on a Punch and Judy side show, than on the game that they are supposedly refereeing. There is now a stronger case to abolish video refereeing ( or severely limit it to critical decisions only ) than there is to increase its influence. Unfortunately, the latter is presently the case and it is prejudicing our game's greatest strengths : speed and continuity. The main show is becoming subsumed by a minor supporting act - it is nothing more than a job creation scheme. Let the referees referee and let them take the stick from the fans when they get it wrong - the rest of us do! That's sport and that's what they are paid for. They should be taking responsibility for their decisions and not referring near to every play to Punch and Judy. Let the game flow for the benefit of players and fans, who are the only people who count. Most importantly, let the refs assume the responsibility that their position of authority naturally and necessarily bestows upon them. At the moment it is a case of maximum authority with minimal responsibility - a dangerous combination in any walk of life.

There's a disappointing lack of historical maritime analogy in that article.

lol

He has a point. I think the video ref system is fine, it's the competency of the people applying the interpretation that is the issue. Obstruction is the key one at the moment, how hard is it to have a common sense rule that states it's obstruction if a non-ball carrying attacking player impedes a defender? So if it's a defensive misread it's not rewarded with a pen etc.

should be like NFL/ tennis / cricket. you have 3 challenges and if you win it you keep it

Would rather the on field ref has to give a decision, and the video ref has 3 viewings to try and conclusively see otherwise. That way, even when it is passed on to the video ref, it's 30 seconds max and means we aren't waiting around for ages with super slow motion

I think the video ref was a good thing when it first come in, it purely there to get the correct decision but now going the the video ref is like a event. We see them checking it, we hear them discuss it and now they even announce it over the PA system.

Let's get back to how it was originally where we don't see or hear him and it's used to get a call right.

The game it's self is the product on show and not the refs.

I have come to really dislike the use of the video ref. It was brought in to prevent travesty tries being given that cost a team the game and embarrass the sport.

However on televised games now the video evidence is scrutinised by a legal team for two minutes and assessed for its legal merits. They search for reasons not to give it outside what the ref had doubts about. The on-field ref should make a decision saying something like "I am going to give this try if the grounding is okay" and if the grounding okay, unless there is a huge obvious howler of a knock on or something the try stands. If the grounding is hard to see, the try stands because the on-field ref give it. It is boring waiting for a decision, tries are wiped off for minor 50/50 things.

Many times I have jumped around after a Saints try, only to shout "Oh no, he's put it on the telly!" If the try is given, the fun has been taken out of it because I have had to wait two minutes and I am angry because I could see it was an obvious try.

I made this comment recently. How frustrating is it to see your team score right in front of you when you are away fans, jumping for joy only to see it referred then you have to wait and see. Removes the ecstacy of the try itself. So annoying.

Personally, I think this is a rubbish article.

Firstly, he has a pop at all the referees collectively. That's stupid from anyone connected to a club.

Secondly, there are some unpleasant, potentially homophobic, undertones there, which are hardly appropriate given recent events.

Thirdly, it's just a silly argument. You cannot demand that referees don't refer decisions to the video ref at televised games. Just imagine the sort of fuss McManus would make if Saints were knocked out of the playoffs to a last gasp try which involved a knock-on, but the ref gave it anyway rather than referring it to the screen. It's fine when the game's not on TV : everyone only gets to see the incident once, so even if one set of fans disagree with the ref's decision, they can't be absolutely certain. At a televised game, even the smallest knock-on, obstruction or toenail in touch is shown in super-slow motion repeatedly, no matter whether the ref has referred it or not. A ref would have to be absolutely mad, if he had any doubt at all, not to refer a try. Because if he didn't, and the replay showed a mistake from an angle he couldn't have seen, then he would be crucified by the fans and players in the stadium, and the likes of McManus would then further crucify him afterwards.

You can argue about how the obstruction rule could be interpreted - that's a valid point. You can argue about whether we want to see the backs of two refs in suits fiddling with a TV - I don't, as it happens. But the idea that refs should deliberately risk getting a crucial decision wrong when 10,000 people are about to be given the chance to see it from a dozen slow-motion angles, is just mad.

Last point. Saints are playing in the Grand Final against Wigan. Wigan score two breakaway tries which involve small knock-ons at the point of scoring, which the ref can't see because he's running from behind play. Put your hands up if you'd rather he just gave the try and allowed Wigan to take the trophy, rather than refer it to a video ref. After all, not wasting that extra 2 minutes is far more important than getting the decision right. Isn't it ? Well it is, isn't it ?

Silly article. I expected better from McManus.

So it's okay for him to take a pop at our team, but not another crucial element to the sport. Unlike other chairman who have spoken out, he's not saying it owing to the fact his team have been on the receiving end recently. Further, I don't think he complains about the quality of refereeing once - just the direction that we are taking AS A SPORT. It's every chairmans prerogative to speak out about that.


I'm going to assume your on about the village people comment, as I've been through it several times and cannot find where you'd of got this from. The village people famously wore varying degrees of ridiculous headwear (some would say akin to our refs) - as far as I know, their sexuality wasn't related to the choice of headwear? Or are you saying we cannot make any comparison to anything anyone gay has ever done in fear of being accused of homophobia? Does saying oscar wildes plays are a poor mans Shakespeare mean I am making a homophobic comment?


Imagine the uproar he'd of made if a player ACTUALLY knocked on in a playoff game to lose us the match - that's the point - the players are accountable for their actions. So should the refs.

Wow that's one long post I can't read at this time of night/day!

MS

I'm not going to do one of those smokeyTA-style threads where we each cut and paste small bits of each other's posts until a post is half a mile long and nobody an follow it anyway. However, in short :

1) Yes, it is of course fine for him to have a pop at his own players and coach, but not officials. He employs the players and coach, and they're his responsibility. He doesn't employ the officials, and they're not his responsibility. This isn't a new concept in RL. In addition, it's not just the criticism, but the tone. It's fine to say that he thinks officials might be over-interpreting the obstruction rule, for example, but it's not fine to disparagingly refer to them as "punch and judy" or "dressed up like the village people". That's not criticising their decisions, that's criticising THEM. It's not the standard to be expected of a senior club owner/administrator.

2) Which brings me on to the homophobia. This is going to be something either you see or you don't see.

McManus said : "The Super League refs, now adorned in fetching pink shirts, and with cameras plastered to their heads, look more like out-of-work Village People than professional officials"

The Village People didn't wear pink. Or cameras. So why is McManus saying that ? It's linked to the pink comment. He's managed to say : they wear pink, therefore they look gay, and the village people were gay, therefore the refs look like the Village People. There is no other reason why he would associate the pink kit with the Village People. If he'd said "flamingos", or "prawns", or even "barbies", then he'd have an excuse based on a silly joke about appearance. But he doesn't - the Village People didn't wear pink. He's making a derogatory point about the pink shirts making the officials look gay, which he clearly associates with being unprofessional.

As I said, this is something people either see or don't see. 4 million people voted for an explicitly racist, homophobic, misogynistic party the other week, and I'd wager most of them would say they couldn't see those things either. IT doesn't mean it's not there.

3) Sorry about this, but if you're honestly saying that you'd rather Saints lost a grand final to a mistakenly awarded try, rather than wait a couple of minutes for an accurate video ref decision, then I'd say that you're a very isolated case. In my experience, fans moan when their own team's try is awarded to a video ref, because it raises the possibility that it will be chalked off. There's markedly less moaning when their opposition's try is referred, because the fans are all hoping it WILL be chalked off.

What's going on here is a complete storm in a teacup - one of the passing fads which Baldy and Wiggy on Sky regularly stir up. In previous seasons, they've done "momentum rule", grapple tackles, water carriers and play the balls, to name ut a few, where they pick on a certain aspect of the game which prior to that season went by unremarked, and which next season will be unremarked again. Then they bore on about it during their commentaries because of a desire to create some kind of controversy. This year it happens to be obstruction decisions and the video ref. Yet we all know that if a try was awarded in which there was obstruction in back play, the two clowns would be the first to bang on about that endlessly during the game. Likewise if a try was awarded without reference to the video ref, but there was a mistake, they'd be showing slow-motion replays till the cows came home. I understand why some fans allow this year's agenda to be set by the sky commentary team, but McManus should be better than that.

I like the NRL version to be honest the REf says I have a try or no try and the video ref ok`s it or not if he sees something the onfield ref didnt , it makes the onfield ref make a decision, , and seems to me to be less silly than showing the same 2 second piec of footage over and over again just IN CASE someone has knocked on