We get it. Ads aren't what you are here for. NZWarriors.com has been up for almost 20 years and relies on ad revenue to help keep the server running.
Please add us to your ad blocker's whitelist or disable to run on our website. Alternatively, click here to upgrade your account to remove all ads.
Do I think theres a deliberate secret plan to derail us? No
Do I think theres a subconscious prejudice against our club ? Yes
Look across all codes, from soccer to rugby - when human judgement and interpretation is involved, there is always going to be an element of bias and prejudice. Its human nature.
I'm no psychologist, but it would be a fascinating thesis to research on and prove that refereeing has human bias which can unfairly benefit or disadvantage a team. I think it can be a proven fact if someone did the research.
Maybe someone really smart, with 2 degrees from the top 2 universities in the world can comment? #wrighty
i have never seen a ref reverse a decision based on anything a player said. They have one job, they are very well paid for it. $300k a year should be enough for them to ignore the drama queens on the field and ref what is in front of them. If they are letting players influence them they are not up to the job and should be replaced by people that are a little stronger in will power.I do think we get bad decisions against us
I don't think it's biased or a conspiracy
The refs are human beings an can be swayed easily by a strong personality
A few years ago sharks signed Maloney an Ennis I said that year they would win the comp . Because of strong personalities Gallon ,Ennis ,Moloney .Be honest if you were the ref you would think twice before blowing the whistle .with those three who just love to argue .ready to go at you .
Cam Smith is a shining example
What's the captains challenge then ?i have never seen a ref reverse a decision based on anything a player said. They have one job, they are very well paid for it. $300k a year should be enough for them to ignore the drama queens on the field and ref what is in front of them. If they are letting players influence them they are not up to the job and should be replaced by people that are a little stronger in will power.
Blake Green was very vocal about the bad call in 2019......”why don’t you just kick us out of the competition”I may have posted this before - Kevin Campion said that before he came to the Warriors he thought us fans were just moaners re adverse ref decisions but after playing a few games for us he quickly changed his mind!
I still say that i would love to see the number of apologies given to each team over the last 2-3 years. I would also like to see how those correspond to games where the victory was within 6 points. You cant fight a rigged game until you know its rigged, or if its rigged. It seems strange to me that we track every other statistic but not that. And i say again that i would think if any team is getting the shaft, be it us or another this should be public knowledge.What's the captains challenge then ?
Why do most clubs have a statistically home feild advantage
Why does Cam smiths team get penalized less than the opposition
Just because things are not 100% how they should be does not mean you can ignore facts ..We all learn life is unfair some at a very young age
Some idealogues don't learn till later ..
It's not about the refs lack of willpower .As much as our inability to influence the ref in our favour ..A home crowd is a perfect example they will let the ref know if he has missed something ,An in that two or three seconds of noise an tension they do influence refs decisions..
Il just leave you with an oldish saying
Don't hate the player ,hate the game
An I'm just pointing out in this part of our performance
Steve F.n Erckles got more game than us.
I agree .But I'm a realist ( except for supporting the warriors)I still say that i would love to see the number of apologies given to each team over the last 2-3 years. I would also like to see how those correspond to games where the victory was within 6 points. You cant fight a rigged game until you know its rigged, or if its rigged. It seems strange to me that we track every other statistic but not that. And i say again that i would think if any team is getting the shaft, be it us or another this should be public knowledge.
over the years we have found out all sorts of dodgy things the refs have done as part of the game, like the mic left on talk about the square ups. The slip when they revelled that they coach to what they expect players to do not what they do etc. Problems can be addressed if they are made public. And if its really not a problem, the stats should back that up to and it would shut everyone up, including me.
Yes yes an yes .It's just a pity he didn't do this all game every gameBlake Green was very vocal about the bad call in 2019......”why don’t you just kick us out of the competition”
No body hit our Benji did they?now that was a Punch. Refs please take note at the differences
rabbits - tigers 10 mins in second half
Perhaps you skimmed over it too quickly.Accepting it for what it is is a defeatist mentality so you're contradicting yourself.
This would be interesting to see. It can be hard to demonstrate statistically significant differences between percentages thought. I think what you would also want to report is the average time the bunker spends looking at a try once it is referred for each team. I have a feeling that would be very telling and likely statistically significantly larger for the Warriors.Maybe I'm going crazy but....
I think a conscious or unconscious refereeing/bunker bias favouring some teams could be shown statistically by calculating the percentage of all tries scored that were referred to the bunker as "try" (as opposed to tries awarded on the spot, or "no try" bunker referrals). This statistic could be compared in a meaningful way to the other teams in the NRL annually.
For example, say last year the warriors scored 100 tries of which 40 were referred to the bunker initially as "try" before being awarded(balance of 60 tries awarded on the spot or overturned from "no try") this would give them a 40 percent bunker referral rate. During the same period the Roosters may have scored 150 tries and had 50 tries referred to the bunker and awarded as "try" for a 33% referral rate. The higher the percentage of on field try referral, the more likely there is a refereeing bias against that team as at this point the on field decision of try can only be taken away by the bunker.
Analysing this statistic for any given year would not necessarily give any useful insights, but when this statistic is compiled for each team as a trend line for each year over a period of say 10 years it would be very interesting. If it could be shown that the warriors are consistently, over a period of a decade, having higher rates of bunker referrals for onfield "try" it would be great grounds for a conspiracy theory.
Similarly bias could potentially be shown by the number of tries sent up as "no try" then overturned to "try" again this could be calculated as an annual percentage of all tries for each team and shown as a trend line over a decade. This could show positive bias, i.e favouritism towards certain teams.
*Disclaimer* I accept that this is not a perfect measure by any means, and there are plenty of other variables (such as the bunker seems to get less work sent its way when it is a lopsided contest for example) but I would be very interested for someone to crunch the numbers nonetheless
Annesley's discussion on this was interesting as he blamed the process yet said it was a try everyday of the week.Just two weeks out from the finals, the NRL is set to make changes to the bunker process after an error cost the Sydney Roosters a try on Saturday night.
Roosters forward Nat Butcher played the ball and stood in the defensive line, but had no room to move as the Knights were parked on their own goal line when Lindsay Collins scored.
"Using the common term of pub test in this, there's just no way this stands up under scrutiny as an obstruction," Annesley said.
On Monday, Annesley said he would need final approval from the ARL commission to make changes to the in-house bunker process but would not elaborate on what they were.
Senior review official Jared Maxwell and former player Beau Scott disagreed over the obstruction call in the bunker on Saturday night.
"As a result of that disagreement they came up with the wrong decision, in my view," Annesley said.
We’ve suffered wrong calls all season... and then it happened to the Roosters!
Looking at the appointments for the games this weekend there is only one person allocated in the bunker & the ex player spot has been dropped.Annesley's discussion on this was interesting as he blamed the process yet said it was a try everyday of the week.
How is it the process as one of the officials held the view that it wasn't a try everyday of the week!
Changing the process will not change some outcomes - what if both officials had agreed it wasn't a try then no matter what the process the outcome would still have been no try.
The only solution is to get rid of the official that said it wasn't a try as he is incompetent!
Compiled from 8 ratings