WHO CONTROLS CORRUPT REFS ?

[D- voice]

The majority of us fans like to believe that there's still honesty in the game...Is there ?

 

[Vlasnik]

The majority of us league fans like to believe

In a corrupt competition like the NRL.....NO ONE!!!

 

[Scoooby]

The one problem is discretion, even a bad call when the game is on the line and that call decides the outcome .. even if reviewed an called a mistake.. no **** is held responsible and we move on, then same shit the next week.

 

[Vlasnik]

 

[Vlasnik]

 

[D- voice]

In a corrupt competition like the NRL.....NO ONE!!!

I believe it's the " Gamble responsibly " people.

 

[KLil]

I believe it's the " Gamble responsibly " people.

Definitely. The bunker was always a tool to make it easier.

 

[Philistine]

The bunker was introduced (allegedly) as a means of redress in case the referee got it wrong. It has the glaring weakness that the bunker official sitting in judgement on the referee is himself an active referee, and, next week, the roles can be reversed. Consequently, the bunker will never reverse an on-field decision if it might embarrass the on-field referee.

The clue is in the on-field referee's instructions. If he says "I have a try - check the grounding and on-side", what he is really saying is "I didn't get a good look - feel free to over-rule me".

A captain's challenge has no chance of succeeding unless the on-field referee's view is inadequate to make an informed decision. If the on-field referee should have got it right but failed to do so, the video ref will always cover his nether regions, and rubber stamp the wrong decision.

And some bunker officials love to show their contempt for the challenge and/or challenger by taking a split second to review.

 

[Moedogg]

I won't be surprised if Sutton is one day implicated in a corruption scandal with bookmakers.

 

[Alan79]

I won't be surprised if Sutton is one day implicated in a corruption scandal with bookmakers.

I know when the NRL originally got in bed with bookmakers, they had a deal where they got a set sponsorship deal plus 7% of the gambling take from NRL fixtures. Straight away that puts the game in a position where they'd increase their income by allowing match fixing. At the same time as all this happened we started seeing ref criticism increase dramatically by coaches. Soon after coaches became liable to pay fines on their wages if they criticized refs.

To me that's a telling thing. The NRL had always seen ref errors. But not to the point where they had to gag coaches and clubs from saying that the refs fucked this/that and the other up.

As we've moved forward since the NRL adopted a gambling partner, we've seen increased grey areas where a rule isn't black or white. It's now to the point where a ref can interpret things to benefit one team or the other. Areas like obstruction, play the ball errors, two on one vs one on one strips are all subject to interpretation and there's no set rule.


So going back to your original statement, I don't think it'll just be Sutton. I'd not be surprised if one day the entire NRL to gambling partner relationship is investigated and they find that there's been massive corruption and collusion to best strip punters of their cash. A lot of people will think I'm a conspiracy theorist. But I can't for the life of me watch games anymore and see the imbalance of refereeing calls and not think it's playing out to get a scripted result.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I won't be surprised if Sutton is one day implicated in a corruption scandal with bookmakers.

I'm not a big gambler but it would seem to me that moving the result away from what the bookmakers have taken the most bets on would be the most favoured outcome for them. For example, the Rabbits were the overwhelming favourites at a large margin with the majority of money on them, hence us winning would be the most favourable result for the bookmakers. Of course a rogue wager of huge value could change that but the NSW Liquor & Gaming Authority would be all over that.

Maybe someone with more gambling experience can explain how Souths winning by the expected margin would benefit the bookmakers enough to bother influencing the result?


Always a Bulldog

 

[Lil Ms Fabulous]

Why do you think I despise gambling with a total passion

 

[Shreksno1]

The bunker was introduced (allegedly) as a means of redress in case the referee got it wrong. It has the glaring weakness that the bunker official sitting in judgement on the referee is himself an active referee, and, next week, the roles can be reversed. Consequently, the bunker will never reverse an on-field decision if it might embarrass the on-field referee.

The clue is in the on-field referee's instructions. If he says "I have a try - check the grounding and on-side", what he is really saying is "I didn't get a good look - feel free to over-rule me".

A captain's challenge has no chance of succeeding unless the on-field referee's view is inadequate to make an informed decision. If the on-field referee should have got it right but failed to do so, the video ref will always cover his nether regions, and rubber stamp the wrong decision.

And some bunker officials love to show their contempt for the challenge and/or challenger by taking a split second to review.

The bunker was introduced to add suspense to your multi legs

omg they’ve even “dumbed down” the gamble responsible message to keep the masses hooked

 

[Vlasnik]

I won't be surprised if Sutton is one day implicated in a corruption scandal with bookmakers.

Him and Ben Cummins

 

[D- voice]

Definitely. The bunker was always a tool to make it easier.

What about the continues rules changes such as 6 again, a rule that helps teams they want to win to get a roll on, not only that that it also takes away the teams choice to go for a goal if needed.

 

[Alan79]

I'm not a big gambler but it would seem to me that moving the result away from what the bookmakers have taken the most bets on would be the most favoured outcome for them. For example, the Rabbits were the overwhelming favourites at a large margin with the majority of money on them, hence us winning would be the most favourable result for the bookmakers. Of course a rogue wager of huge value could change that but the NSW Liquor & Gaming Authority would be all over that.

Maybe someone with more gambling experience can explain how Souths winning by the expected margin would benefit the bookmakers enough to bother influencing the result?


Always a Bulldog

The thing is, unless you actually got to scrutinise the flow of money you don't know what the profit margin will be for a set result. I do know that the dogs have a huge fan base probably in more affluent areas than the typical South's fan. So not only the number of bets, but the amount per bet might be something to think about.

If I was sure that the favourite was going to win by 30 points I would as a businessman offer a fucking huge incentive to get people backing the underdog and not change the odds based on the way the money flowed. This is why it's tough to know if a fix is on when the flow of betting is not seeing the light of day.

Ideally we could get a royal commission into this. But given how much gambling agencies and this country's can spend on advertising, it'd be easy for them to bribe political parties to avoid this too.

 

[Lil Ms Fabulous]

Has anyone else noticed that Gambling is not even prevalent in most of the women‘s sports at all?

 

[SPEARTAKVIDREFS]

The majority of us fans like to believe that there's still honesty in the game...Is there ?

Even though I dislike certain refs, the NRL is responsible for the rules and how they are interpreted by the refs.

Here is a truth. Games are partly officiated by a guy sitting in a room infront of monitors reviewing slow motion camera angles. Thats insane when you think about it. It has a monumental effect on the game. Its not like when video review was first introduced. The pendulum has swung so far it is beyond disbelief.

An example - Players often being punished for accidental infringements that happen at pace (not in slow motion). How can you punish someone with say accidental contact to the head 2 foot off the ground? How does that make any sense when you have blokes like Tedesco who often fall into tackles?
Another - How do you go back a couple of plays and penalize a player and send them for 10 for an accidental so called hip drop? Thats insane. On what planet does that make any sense?

Bigger picture - I dont beleive there is corruption with refs. I believe its inconsistency coupled with incompetence from the NRL. They set the rules, they allow for interpretation of the rules. They are responsible for everything the bunker does.

Corruption? How could they corrupt games when the game has been made so complex over an 80 minute period.

Bias? With the bunker in his ear, the game in motion at pace, I dont think Sutton has time to be distracted enough to think, "Fuck I hate the Dogs, Im going to start giving Souths a leg up"

 

[D- voice]

The bunker was introduced (allegedly) as a means of redress in case the referee got it wrong. It has the glaring weakness that the bunker official sitting in judgement on the referee is himself an active referee, and, next week, the roles can be reversed. Consequently, the bunker will never reverse an on-field decision if it might embarrass the on-field referee.

The clue is in the on-field referee's instructions. If he says "I have a try - check the grounding and on-side", what he is really saying is "I didn't get a good look - feel free to over-rule me".

A captain's challenge has no chance of succeeding unless the on-field referee's view is inadequate to make an informed decision. If the on-field referee should have got it right but failed to do so, the video ref will always cover his nether regions, and rubber stamp the wrong decision.

And some bunker officials love to show their contempt for the challenge and/or challenger by taking a split second to review.

Who ever controls crooked refs controls the banker

 

[D- voice]

Him and Ben Cummins

There would be few.