Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Big Ewis" data-source="post: 634745" data-attributes="member: 57076">I totally understand that for this particular play, but it&#039;s just not true though. You see tiny little things called in those huge games all the time that you&#039;d never see in &quot;regular&quot; games. So it&#039;s just not true, it&#039;s just not a reality. We&#039;re not robots, we&#039;re people, and unless it&#039;s situations like these where the Ulsterman really didn&#039;t give the ref much of a choice, because the play was so wide open, spectacular and perfectly caught on camera. Or Warburton on Vincent Clerc, RWC semi-final or not that was clearly a red and in fact very very few ppl ever contested the call.But overall it&#039;s just not true. Little things here and there that certainly are written in the rule book aren&#039;t called in &quot;regular, common games&quot; and are called in those important knock-out matches.But of course for this instance, the ref couldn&#039;t go &quot;well yeah but it&#039;s a European 1/4F, and it&#039;s just 6min in !....&quot;.What I do believe is that the rules, if as strict and unflexible and objective as we say they are, need to be displayed systematically in those big moments. They should appear on the screen and the pundits should read them out loud every single time. How is it that we have objective, rigid rules on paper and people still questioning calls ? That just shouldn&#039;t be a possibility.Tbh, I couldn&#039;t give you an outright answer about it. It looks &quot;reddish&quot; and by experience I feel it&#039;s a coherent call, but I haven&#039;t got the exact piece of theory&nbsp; displaying in my head as I watch that play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Big Ewis, post: 634745, member: 57076"] I totally understand that for this particular play, but it's just not true though. You see tiny little things called in those huge games all the time that you'd never see in "regular" games. So it's just not true, it's just not a reality. We're not robots, we're people, and unless it's situations like these where the Ulsterman really didn't give the ref much of a choice, because the play was so wide open, spectacular and perfectly caught on camera. Or Warburton on Vincent Clerc, RWC semi-final or not that was clearly a red and in fact very very few ppl ever contested the call. But overall it's just not true. Little things here and there that certainly are written in the rule book aren't called in "regular, common games" and are called in those important knock-out matches. But of course for this instance, the ref couldn't go "well yeah but it's a European 1/4F, and it's just 6min in !....". What I do believe is that the rules, if as strict and unflexible and objective as we say they are, need to be displayed systematically in those big moments. They should appear on the screen and the pundits should read them out loud every single time. How is it that we have objective, rigid rules on paper and people still questioning calls ? That just shouldn't be a possibility. Tbh, I couldn't give you an outright answer about it. It looks "reddish" and by experience I feel it's a coherent call, but I haven't got the exact piece of theory displaying in my head as I watch that play. [/QUOTE]

Verification