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

I apologise for the split post response, it's just you raised multiple points and it's the easiest way to respond to them on an iPad,





Except he's not criticising them. He's criticising how they are presented to the public, that has nothing to do with the refs themselves - it's their administrators who are solely responsible for it. Both of your picked out quotes have nothing to do with a referee, their ability, or the decisions they make - and all to do with how the administration (and sky) present them. He suggests in time gone by we have done everything we can to speed the game up, and make it a spectacle to watch, which the latest interpretation of use of the video ref is damaging, which is damaging the sport as a whole. This is just factual. No game should be judged differently dependent of whether someone as sky thought it's be a good game. Or even if a situation in that game can have 2 different outcomes. Take the Luke Walsh no try vs Huddersfield. If he gets tackled 5m short, the ref has to play on. If it's not on sky, it's given as a try. Without the video ref. the refs judgement on the play is try - he let play go on for 60m after all! Yet we all had to trudge back to the saints 40 because the ref didn't trust his own judgement. And no, I would of had no complaints if it had been the other way around and given without referral.





I take a great deal of offence towards these comments. Just because I don't see offence in them doesn't make me any less enlightened on the topic of homophobia, or xenophobia, or anything else. But to avoid comparison all together is as equally homophobic as it would be to say "the refs are gay cos they look like village people". McManus as clearly at random chosen a group noted for their ridiculous attire to make a comparison to the refs current attire, of which McManus clearly isn't a fan. That's all there is in the statement - it's a more flowery way of saying "and the refs look ridiculous". I personally think it's pandering that they're sponsored by spec savers. But that's a whole other complaint. Now why McManus feels the need to bring up their attire could be in question, but that's already been brought up above.





Two things:



a) I bet I'm not! Put the exact same situation on the Wigan board I'm sure they'd agree with me.



b) but it's not a few minutes to decide the grandfinal winners, it's multiple times every single game. Which is affecting the enjoyment of the sport for many. Which brings me back to the point i made. I'm sorry I didn't let my bias get in the way.





The majority of fans will moan forever about everything anyway. I find it no coincidence that if a game isn't on sky, you might have a 2 page thread complaining. Yet we can hit 40 pages when it's on tv. Now that to me suggests that the way the material is packaged and delivered must be far too focused on it. Which is the comments of a Punch and Judy side show, that McManus made. If sky didn't feel the need to micro analyse every reffing decision, there wouldn't be as many complaints by fans, and there'd be less need for a video ref.







Agreed dumb and dumber are a huge part of the problem (and comes back to how our game is packaged and presented) but if the average casual supporter gets told too many times that there's too many referrals , they're gonna believe it. I see nothing in the piece that suggests McManus is against video refs, just the current culture of microanaysis and the unequal situations they create (how long until a player deliberately gets tackled instead of scoring to avoid having to go to the video ref ala luke Walsh?) - and more importantly how they are presented to the viewing public, as I said, the refs do an incredibly difficult job, and should have every tool available to help them - but they are there to make decisions and not damage the enjoyment of the sport. As they say, the best refs are never noticed.

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.