krustykraz
Jarrod Mullen
Almost every game Cameron Smith got away with at least one forward pass.
ROUND 18 - MELBOURNE STORM V NEWCASTLE KNIGHTS
- Thread starter Billy
- Start date
Still_Nutty
Steve Walters
Actually Harvee, I hadn’t got to the unconscious bias in that post 
…but that was another pet peeve of mine.
My gripe about unconscious bias (although I think some of it is closer to ‘conscious’) relates to the engagement and tone referees have on the field and how it varies depending on which team is defending.
Saturday’s game was a classic opportunity to hear it in practice because there was no crowd, so no background noise - if you listen to the way and tone the referee used to manage the ruck (and ruck speed) shows how he has profiled and developed preconceived ideas about teams and players.
I get research and analysis but when it gets to profiling, the problem is that it establishes an expectation that somebody will infringe, so referees are looking for things they expect to support their profile.
If you get a chance or are watching that game again (lol, not that you’d want to) listen to the subtle differences between teams.
In most instances, when Sutton talks to the Storm players whilst managing and clearing the ruck, he maintains a relatively calm voice, generally no elevated pitch, rarely calling players by name and not inferring he is ready to penalise the team with a set restart.
If you then listen how he approaches the Knights defensive rucks more often than not (particularly where Barnett is involved i.e. ‘profiled’) he starts ‘interacting’ earlier, escalates to a higher pitch/using louder voice, infers more urgency, calls players by name, etc.
Like I said, I get homework by referees but when you start targeting players because you ‘expect’ them to infringe, you are not refereeing just what’s in front of you, you are applying a bias.
What they are then looking for is something they unconsciously expect to see and that means they are looking with a bias that needs to be reaffirmed to justify what there research ‘tells them’ they are likely to see.
I don’t envy the referees and their job, it is a tough gig and preparing by analysing the teams and players has to be part of the job. But I do think they need to be equally attuned to making sure they still referee what they see in front of them, regardless of what they are expecting they might see.
OK - now my rant is over
…but that was another pet peeve of mine.My gripe about unconscious bias (although I think some of it is closer to ‘conscious’) relates to the engagement and tone referees have on the field and how it varies depending on which team is defending.
Saturday’s game was a classic opportunity to hear it in practice because there was no crowd, so no background noise - if you listen to the way and tone the referee used to manage the ruck (and ruck speed) shows how he has profiled and developed preconceived ideas about teams and players.
I get research and analysis but when it gets to profiling, the problem is that it establishes an expectation that somebody will infringe, so referees are looking for things they expect to support their profile.
If you get a chance or are watching that game again (lol, not that you’d want to) listen to the subtle differences between teams.
In most instances, when Sutton talks to the Storm players whilst managing and clearing the ruck, he maintains a relatively calm voice, generally no elevated pitch, rarely calling players by name and not inferring he is ready to penalise the team with a set restart.
If you then listen how he approaches the Knights defensive rucks more often than not (particularly where Barnett is involved i.e. ‘profiled’) he starts ‘interacting’ earlier, escalates to a higher pitch/using louder voice, infers more urgency, calls players by name, etc.
Like I said, I get homework by referees but when you start targeting players because you ‘expect’ them to infringe, you are not refereeing just what’s in front of you, you are applying a bias.
What they are then looking for is something they unconsciously expect to see and that means they are looking with a bias that needs to be reaffirmed to justify what there research ‘tells them’ they are likely to see.
I don’t envy the referees and their job, it is a tough gig and preparing by analysing the teams and players has to be part of the job. But I do think they need to be equally attuned to making sure they still referee what they see in front of them, regardless of what they are expecting they might see.
OK - now my rant is over
Last edited:
KnightsUnite
Banned
This is my rant
Knights suck!
Over!
Knights suck!
Over!
packo
:) (:
I was going to mention this. In the Broncos game I can’t remember who said it during the call but Turpin/ Croft played a similar play at the ruck that Cronk and Smith use too and the commentator said Smith would get away with the same play all the time. Ball was called forward.
I just think the crackdown is over and nobody is getting sent off or sinbinned under any circumstances anymore … which is a shame, it mixed things up a bit, and also the Knights are so passionless we never got anyone sent off the field.
Thailands Novacastrian
Brad Godden
Paul fatty vautin said it, in which slater replied turn it up
.. It was great and refreshing to hear someone speak it how it wasTheres a lot of excuses here as to why the 44 point loss,1..the storm didnt fight to keep obrien theres a clue..2..ponga really is over rated..3..theres a lack of effort from the forward pack it really was men against boys,theres no leader no one who screams follow me,poor recruitment the team needs a complete overhaul and get some hard nosed effort players..
spirit are you joking...learn to do it
We call the 0.5m deliberate forward pass a Thurston pass in my house.....guess why
O'Brien chose to go as Bellamy was going nowhere. Melbourne held him in high enough esteem to award him life membership
Ethan
Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus
1 As far as the 44 point loss goes , what is it 8 or so games that the Storm have won by 30 points or more ... We were far from the only team to get smashed by the Storm and some were better sides than ours .
2. Nobody that matters thinks Ponga is overrated a few disgruntled supporters maybe but thats about it , everyone else thinks he's a superstar . ..
3.. Our forward pack has more than held its own against most teams except for the Storm game and imo no way do we need an overhaul not even close ....
Oh and they made OBrien a life member and Bellamy kept him there for 10 years what does that tell you .
danknights
Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus
I've been critical of ponga not being able to do fullback things. He does the flash hey look at me stuff very well but the support play could be much better, his a bit iffy under the high ball at times, defence needs work. It's all learning curves and his far from a superstar just yet. When his played 150 games plus and is more well rounded then sure I'll give him that tag.
Ethan
Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus
Jeez i couldn't disagree with this more... You hardly ever see him drop a ball his defence is as good as any f/b in the comp , his support play is very good ... I dont know what player your watching but imo its not Ponga .
He is pretty safe under the high ball, his defence is ok without being great, his support play has been better the last few weeks still needs some work. I myself am a little critical of ponga because IMO he is a absolute freak and has the potential to be a Immortal just needs to work on his game a bit more.
slotmachine
Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus
no where near it
Ethan
Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus
Really how many tackles have you seen him miss .
I'm a big Ponga fan but I'll admit his defence has not been fantastic. His attack is unbelievable but his defence is not close to a Tedesco, for example. He missed a couple of tackles against the Broncos.
