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

Political correctness gone mad. If you look hard enough someone will always find offence in anything that somebody else says. The village people comment, as I see it, refers to the fact that they look ridiculous. Get the refs back in black (AC/DC reference there, hope it doesn't offend anyone) and they can look as they always have done. They are there to referee a match, not a) be an extra camera stand b) be an extra advertising hoarding and c) look a complete idiot.

Why would a try like this ever be referred to the video ref? By this logic every break away try where the ref is well behind play would need to be referred just in case there's been a knock on he can't see during grounding of the ball. If the ref has no reason to suspect there's been an offence or an error why would he refer it?

Although even in black some do still manage to achieve point c).

Because one of your touch judges with a wider view says "Might have been a knock on there, can't be sure."

Because the fans of the defending team near the score all jump up shouting "knock-on".

Because the defending player appeals for a knock-on, having seen it close-hand.

Now the ref can ignore all those things and award the try, only to see himself repeatedly pilloried on a large screen in front of 40,000 people, or he can just refer it upstairs to check. The worst that can happen if he refers it is a 60-second pause in proceedings. The worse that can happen if he doesn't, is that the game is decided on a mistake. That's a really easy decision to make.

As I said above, this is all a nonsense issue. The same fans who are currently screaming loudest for not referring things to the video ref are undoubtedly those who would scream loudest about the injustice the first time a ref gave a try which was then shown to be a no-score on the big screen.

As for this straw man about people being turned off the game because of the amount of time a video referee decision takes - what utter hogwash. What percentage of ex-fans have been surveyed to discover this as the motivation for their departure ? What research has been done ? What evidence is there of TV audiences switching off when video ref decisions are pending ?

There's nothing to see here. A manufactured argument about buggerall.

I quite like the announcements over the tannoy explaining the decisions. I don't see the point of showing the deliberations on screen, but I think they've been put in to show that the refs are actually making the decisions.

I think one of the issues is the length of time taken over some decisions, if the decision needs to be watched more than 5 times on a super slow mo, then maybe it just should be benefit of the doubt to the attacking side.

I do think that the video ref is here to stay, and that is the correct way to go. They get more decisions right than they do wrong.

Wait - The village people were gay!?

racist.

EM mentions the Salford v Wigan game as over use of the VR.
I do tend to agree with him.
The obstuctions I've no issue with as if the tech is there use it and they are very difficult to see first time.
What got me in that game was the VR being used for the Bateman try as the ref was in line when Smith kicked the ball for the last time before Bateman touched down.
Also the Hock no try. His ball carrying arm hit the ground twice before he got over the line.
The Powell try, from the TV it was clear Williams didn't knock on as the ball hit his boot.
Then the Burgess try, was he in touch? He was over a metre in play.
On those four incidents the ref and TJ's should have been able to award or disallow as appropriate as they were so obvious.
If they had decided on those four try/no try then the other referrals would have been on the obstuction calls which would have been a different matter.

Note the Manchester Evening News! not the Echo, well Super League are based now in Media City Salford! Still feel right or wrong with the subject McManus likes to hear his own voice and be in the media.

Subject matter, video is being used wrongly currently, but to scrap it completely would be another backward step, something RL seems to love to do.