Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
[2016 Super Rugby] Jaguares vs. Sharks (Round 12) 14/05/2016
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 797866" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>1) According to the video you posted, it were 9-12 points, not 16. That's biased <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p>2) The biggest proof of bias in the video is that Albanese fine combs all the decisions against us but none of the ones against the sharks. In order to claim bias (as opposed to bad refereeing) you need to see both sides of the coin. Otherwise it'd be biased by definition. Just out of the top of my head: </p><p>- Second try</p><p>- It took us 3 off sides till the referee spoke to creevy and told him he needed to stop that. They never gave the sharks such a warning and it cost the sharks a yellow card. </p><p></p><p>3) in the first play of the video, it is clearly a mistake from the ref, but one that, given his position on the field, it is easy to understand. This is my point, mistakes aren't necessarily a sign of bias. </p><p></p><p>4) I am 100% sure that if a south african crew fine combed the video and cherry picked, they could make the exact opposite argument. </p><p></p><p>I love the sport and support jaguares, but i am also a huge fan of serious and objective analysis of the game. First by chance and later by choice i stopped watching ESPN. What is out there is far from perfect, but it is light years ahead of what we have. ESPN commentators aren't analysts, they are fans. It'd be like judging the Argentina's performance over the last 12 years just by watching 678. </p><p></p><p></p><p>A good exercise to judge bias is the following: disregard what sharks' and jaguares' fans are saying and pay close attention to what the rest of the people are saying. I do not see those people screaming bias. In fact, after post 49 two stormers' fans correctly pointed out a mistake (Stormers would have benefited form a shark's defeat). </p><p>The only ones claiming bias on this thread are jaguares fans. When i see all the people from one team claiming bias from the ref, either the evidence is overwhelming or they are being biased themselves. I do not see overwhelming evidence on this case. </p><p></p><p>I must admit thou, i sometimes tend to overcompensate towards the other team in order to correct for my own (and sometimes unconscious) bias. I will give you that. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This i can empathize with. </p><p></p><p>And one more time, i agree with you that the ref was bad, but he was bad against both sides. </p><p>The first element to solving a problem (other than acknowledging there is a problem) is a good diagnosis. A bad referee and a biased referee are not quite the same thing. </p><p>Again, the ref was pretty bad (the longest advantage for a knock on i've seen in a long time), but people biased against you don't give away free tries. </p><p></p><p>One last thing. Some people will claim "he is south african and therefore he will help the south african team". It was in the stormers, the lions and the bulls best interest for the sharks to lose.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 797866, member: 55747"] 1) According to the video you posted, it were 9-12 points, not 16. That's biased :) 2) The biggest proof of bias in the video is that Albanese fine combs all the decisions against us but none of the ones against the sharks. In order to claim bias (as opposed to bad refereeing) you need to see both sides of the coin. Otherwise it'd be biased by definition. Just out of the top of my head: - Second try - It took us 3 off sides till the referee spoke to creevy and told him he needed to stop that. They never gave the sharks such a warning and it cost the sharks a yellow card. 3) in the first play of the video, it is clearly a mistake from the ref, but one that, given his position on the field, it is easy to understand. This is my point, mistakes aren't necessarily a sign of bias. 4) I am 100% sure that if a south african crew fine combed the video and cherry picked, they could make the exact opposite argument. I love the sport and support jaguares, but i am also a huge fan of serious and objective analysis of the game. First by chance and later by choice i stopped watching ESPN. What is out there is far from perfect, but it is light years ahead of what we have. ESPN commentators aren't analysts, they are fans. It'd be like judging the Argentina's performance over the last 12 years just by watching 678. A good exercise to judge bias is the following: disregard what sharks' and jaguares' fans are saying and pay close attention to what the rest of the people are saying. I do not see those people screaming bias. In fact, after post 49 two stormers' fans correctly pointed out a mistake (Stormers would have benefited form a shark's defeat). The only ones claiming bias on this thread are jaguares fans. When i see all the people from one team claiming bias from the ref, either the evidence is overwhelming or they are being biased themselves. I do not see overwhelming evidence on this case. I must admit thou, i sometimes tend to overcompensate towards the other team in order to correct for my own (and sometimes unconscious) bias. I will give you that. This i can empathize with. And one more time, i agree with you that the ref was bad, but he was bad against both sides. The first element to solving a problem (other than acknowledging there is a problem) is a good diagnosis. A bad referee and a biased referee are not quite the same thing. Again, the ref was pretty bad (the longest advantage for a knock on i've seen in a long time), but people biased against you don't give away free tries. One last thing. Some people will claim "he is south african and therefore he will help the south african team". It was in the stormers, the lions and the bulls best interest for the sharks to lose. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
[2016 Super Rugby] Jaguares vs. Sharks (Round 12) 14/05/2016
Top