Spreaders gets it wrong again
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Lets not lose sight of what the touch judges are there for: to judge touch. They can report foul play unspotted by the referee, but beyond that they shouldn't be trying to referee the game from the sideline. Steve Walsh, the Kiwi referee was trying to do just this on the Lions tour and he just got up everyone's nose.
So let the referee referee and let the touch judges judge touch. Anything they can pick up on that the referee doesn't should be seen as a bonus rather than a necessity of their role in the game.
So let the referee referee and let the touch judges judge touch. Anything they can pick up on that the referee doesn't should be seen as a bonus rather than a necessity of their role in the game.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 4454
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 8:50 am
- Location: Tonbridge
In theory that is fine Iain, but when you have a referee who misses a number of what some would call blatant offsides by the other team (by that I mean Sale), who gives a number of inexplicable decisions but misses others, did not award the try that went to the video (maybe a tough call but annoyed many), etc then you have a referee which gets many people irrate like Spreaders did yesterday. Not one of his better games! He doesn't seem to worry though just enjoys it!
I do think touch judges should be able to help where the referee misses certain things like with the third umpire in cricket.
I do think touch judges should be able to help where the referee misses certain things like with the third umpire in cricket.
I think the only thing wrong with the non-award of a try when it went to the video referee was the impatience of the crowd. I think many had done what I did and at first glance thought the ball had been grounded, but on second viewing what I thought was the ball was the Sale player's shoulder. No definitive decision could be made, therefore no try.
I think spreaders did ok, nice to see our sharky mates having a dig, what would we do without them!! on their forum they reckon Julian and Cabbage did Spreaders 'over like a kipper!!' but I think Mr Sheridon did that all by himself.
Anyway back to the thread, spreaders was ok, had a few howlers but I think the worse comment I heard this weekend was a 'South African' commentator describe Chris White as one of the best ref's in the WORLD........... I nearly burst my stitches laughing!!!
Anyway back to the thread, spreaders was ok, had a few howlers but I think the worse comment I heard this weekend was a 'South African' commentator describe Chris White as one of the best ref's in the WORLD........... I nearly burst my stitches laughing!!!
Life was like a box of chocolates - until I ate them!
I think Spreaders is all right - some of the decisions were confusing from where I was standing, but that's often the case.
Generally, I think Spreadbury is unpopular because he isn't partisan and therefore nobody likes him. At least he seems to have forgiven our players for knocking him out that time...
Generally, I think Spreadbury is unpopular because he isn't partisan and therefore nobody likes him. At least he seems to have forgiven our players for knocking him out that time...
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7106
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
- Location: NW Leics
Spreaders makes mistakes, but he likes the players to get on with it and his games are usually more entertaining than other refs.
On watching the tape when I got home, most of his decisions seemed right. He missed at least as many Tigers offences as he did Sharks (including a definite yellow card / obstruction by, I think, Goode), and I actually think he may have got a little bit rattled by the home support.
The Hodgson / Chuter conversion incident was marginal, could have gone either way.
I do agree that it is impossible for any ref to pick up all offences, so I think we should give them a little slack. Whether or not TJs should be given more of an 'umpire' type role is a difficult one, we criticise them when they 'miss' things but get irritated when they become obtrusive. We need to decide what it is we actually want from them.
On watching the tape when I got home, most of his decisions seemed right. He missed at least as many Tigers offences as he did Sharks (including a definite yellow card / obstruction by, I think, Goode), and I actually think he may have got a little bit rattled by the home support.
The Hodgson / Chuter conversion incident was marginal, could have gone either way.
I do agree that it is impossible for any ref to pick up all offences, so I think we should give them a little slack. Whether or not TJs should be given more of an 'umpire' type role is a difficult one, we criticise them when they 'miss' things but get irritated when they become obtrusive. We need to decide what it is we actually want from them.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7106
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
- Location: NW Leics
watching a re run of the game this morning on tv he did ok but sky didn't show any of the controversial moments in the highlights. i was right between the posts and geordan definitely grounded the ball!! i don't think TJ's do anything though they seem to turn a blind eye to most things not within 2 yards of them
Forgot the resty - vesty is the besty!
Bearing in mind one touch judge stands on the offside line at the throw in (whilst the other stands on the line of the throw in) my two suggestions struck me as pretty damn obvious. Similarly at the maul one could stand at each of the rearmost feet............dailywaffle wrote:Hi Bill. I think offsides is an interesting thought, it is not well refereed and is a curse of the modern game. I suppose it would need a change in the TJs remit (or ref's instruction ?), but I agree that they could be usefully used in this area.
Touch judges should definitely get more involved. I saw hands-in-the-ruck and coming in from the wrong side numerous times by Sale players when Spreadbury was (probably) unsighted and the TJ was within a few yards and could clearly see the offence. I'm sure there were occasions where Tigers players were guilty of similar offences. I'd like to see the TJs get more involved in the "blatant" decisions, but steer clear of the marginal calls. That way it wouldn't slow the game down and you couldn't accuse them of being too obtrusive.
I thought Spreadbury had a decent game bar a couple of isolated incidents but Hodgson's conversion attempt was a particular howler. Hodgson had clearly begun his approach before the ball fell over. Should never have been taken again, but in the end made no difference anyway
I thought Spreadbury had a decent game bar a couple of isolated incidents but Hodgson's conversion attempt was a particular howler. Hodgson had clearly begun his approach before the ball fell over. Should never have been taken again, but in the end made no difference anyway