What do we do?

slickerthansleek · 01-08-2010, 12:26 AM

I understand that refereeing is a very hard go, I used to do it and copped all kinds of abuse. They do their best, are under constant pressure and are more likely to be criticised than to get a good rap.

However, something needs to be done. Again, the Roosters were screwed by the referees tonight and the Sharks had the game taken off them by the referees. Do you get rid of Finch? Do you give them more training? Do you change the wording of the rules so common sense can prevail?

Something's gotta be done.

raysie · 01-08-2010, 12:38 AM

I really don't know. At the moment they're at an all time low and they just always have to make sure their presence is known in every game.

I'd say to get the video referee involved more in-game on blatant wrong calls, but then I know we've been through that already and it was a massive failure.

What I do know is it is the referee's fault it's so hard to ref a game. They keep coming up with so many useless rules that it's just too much for their brains to process at once. Junior referees have an easier time refereeing largely due to the less amount of rules in junior games.

So my suggestion is to cut the crappy rules and they'll have an easier job. Everything is so technical these days that they can't even get the simple things right anymore.

rule_the_roost · 01-08-2010, 07:35 PM

i think that they do an excellent job enforcing the rules that are given to them....

i think they just need to tweak a few of the rules to maek it more common sense nd easier...

but the refs i think get about 95% of things correct.

Easts93 · 01-08-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rule_the_roost

but the refs i think get about 25% of things correct.

Absolutely.

rule_the_roost · 02-08-2010, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easts93

Absolutely.

if that was tru i wouldnt bother watchin the games

kuwaiti kev · 02-08-2010, 02:47 PM

The referee makes many decisions in every single play in the game, to suggest they get only 25% correct is moronic.
I don't think the current batch are particularly good but get out and try it yourself before you bag them to that extent. Remember they don't have numerous camera angles and time to analyse every movement, half the time they are probably unsighted by the pure fact that there are 26 large men running around near the ball, it's hard enough seeing hand balls on a field with 22 skinny men lol.
I do believe some of the current crop are swayed by the crowds and also play favourites to certain clubs/country (yes my poor Warriors are always on the wrong end of calls), that is something they can work on.
As for the other errors, it might be because they are human??????

WannabePopper · 02-08-2010, 02:53 PM

Are you kidding?? "Get out and do it yourself before you bag them".

Because you've never bagged anyone for something you've never experienced?

The refs are a joke. There's only like 2 or 3 good ones out of all of them. It's detracting from the quality of almost every single game every single week.

That Sharks one was completely ridiculous. At most, it should have been a play the ball. Every single game you get a moment when the ref calls held, and then the tackling player completes the tackles after the call, and then it's get up and play the ball.

kuwaiti kev · 02-08-2010, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WannabePopper

Because you've never bagged anyone for something you've never experienced?

Of course I have, it's very easy to do. But what exactly are you achieving in this case? Who's going to make them better?
I think it's safe to presume on the most part they are honest mistakes, so how do you make a human being perfect?
How many video ref decisions do you want? How much time wasted watching to see if there were one or 2 tacklers at the split second the ball is stripped?

So we sit here saying the refs are crap at their job while never actually doing the job ourselves. If hundreds of thousands of people round the world watched you carefully for 80 minutes a week, would you be 100% perfect at your job Wannabe?

Don't get me wrong, I hate most the refs lol, just get sick of hearing all the complaints when there really is bug all that can be done about it, it's one of those 'human factors' in our great game.

anada · 02-08-2010, 05:37 PM

I'd like to see the video ref get in the on field ref's ear if something was missed and they would reverse the call. Not having mucking around waiting to see what the video ref thinks, just when the call is wrong and it's obvious. Like let's say Gidley drops the ball and it's called as a knock on with the sea eagles to feed the scrum but then in a replay you can see Lyon raked it out in a 3 man tackle, if the scrum is still getting set they could tell the on field ref what happened and bobs your uncle. No asking the video ref straight off the bat, go with what you think happened and if you're wrong, your eyes in the sky can fix the call.

rule_the_roost · 02-08-2010, 07:18 PM

i think anada ha some good ideas... would be good if the video ref could tip off the on field refs...
im not saying that refs get everything rite, but i will say that they all llove the game, try their hardest and NEVER delibarately get calls worong
f u dont like like the refereeing do something else on ur weekends cos the problems not going away

WannabePopper · 03-08-2010, 11:47 AM

There are ways to fix the problems you know. It's not just a simple matter of "live with it or watch something else". That highlights the problems more.

Firstly, they can blow the whistle in a given situation, and rather than immediately call it, they can have a delay (it'd only take 5 odd second to do a quick video check).

Again, using the play the ball as an example, the ball is dropped in the play the ball, the on field ref blows his whistle, the video ref checks the video and then gives the call, the on field ref tells you the result. This would slow down the game a little, but it would improve the consistency..

You can reduce the amount of refs doing games. Rather than having 40 different refs, you can half it to 20. 4 Video refs do 2 games each, 8 on field refs do 2 games each, 8 touchies do 2 games each. This would, again, improve the consistency.

One of the far left field suggestions, every time there is an error, the time is stopped (kind of like in the NFL) and the video ref can check it. The main issue with this one, is your 80 minute game turns into a 200 minute game.

The best one though, an appeal system for the captains, in which 1 person, or a single group of people, could run every single appeal for every single game.

The main issues with the refs come from consistency between calls and games. This is easily solved by reducing the amount of refs or people making the calls.

anada · 03-08-2010, 01:03 PM

I think that the problem with doing what you suggested popper (with the ref blowing the whistle and letting the video ref decide who gets it) is that while it may only be a few seconds it would be noticeable and add up. And you'd get people like Gould complaining to no end about it. That's why I think if you let the ref make the call as he sees it, and it's apparent that it's wrong then the video ref would let him know. If he had the right call there would be no delay whatsoever.

While the refs job isn't as hard as the players, two games each every week would burn them out

Wogboy · 03-08-2010, 01:09 PM

To be honest they need to fix the stripping rule. It is a joke.

There is absolutely no point in the ball carrier having ball security. 50% of strip calls are accidental, or are the fault of the ball carrier.

WannabePopper · 03-08-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anada

I think that the problem with doing what you suggested popper (with the ref blowing the whistle and letting the video ref decide who gets it) is that while it may only be a few seconds it would be noticeable and add up. And you'd get people like Gould complaining to no end about it. That's why I think if you let the ref make the call as he sees it, and it's apparent that it's wrong then the video ref would let him know. If he had the right call there would be no delay whatsoever.

While the refs job isn't as hard as the players, two games each every week would burn them out

I understand it would delay the game slightly and add up. Keep in mind, none of these are my ideas, they're ripped straight from suggestions from the media. The one where the video ref makes the call was suggested by Vossy on the Sunday Roast last year and Gus did tell him he was a "strange little man", but then Gus suggested the time stoppage at everything.

Some refs are doing 2 games each week at the moment, but yeah, I could see how that may add up to be a problem. That one was suggested by Gus. However, I 100% don't see why they need so many video refs.. Surely one in Sydney, one in New Zealand, one in Melbourne, one in QLD would be fine. The video ref doesn't need to be at the game you know?

The refs have rejected the video ref changing the call. I believe it's because they don't want to look like idiots. LOL!

And yeah, Wogboy, they 100% need to fix the stripping rule. Almost every single tackle the tackler's hand is on the ball, that doesn't mean he's going for a strip. I love Freddy's story about his 300th game. Someone was punching him in the head, and all he could think of was making sure he held onto the ball.

anada · 03-08-2010, 01:45 PM

Totally agree about the video refs. I don't know how many there are at the moment but surely 3 or 4 would be enough, that'd cover saturday/Sunday when there's 3 games on.

Well I can see the refs not wanting to look foolish but haha, they can do what they're told.

rule_the_roost · 03-08-2010, 09:19 PM

i reckon it should be whatever the ref calls goes...
look at soccer, biggest game in the world nd thats how they do it

Easts93 · 03-08-2010, 09:26 PM

I could be wrong here, having never refereed a game of soccer in my life, but I'd say refereeing soccer would be infinitely easier than rugby league.

rule_the_roost · 03-08-2010, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easts93

I could be wrong here, having never refereed a game of soccer in my life, but I'd say refereeing soccer would be infinitely easier than rugby league.

perhaps... probably has more to do with the fact that rugby league seems to attract the whole bogan, toothless drunken hick crowd

Warriors · 03-08-2010, 09:34 PM

Did anyone else see Lewis Browns try that was called a knock on without even going up stairs! Cost us the game and possibly a spot in the finals, reffing has been horrific this year. They do there best blah blah blah but it's ruining the NRL and something needs done. Atleast Ivan spoke out the other week about penalty counts always going against us and getting dogged by the refs. Didn't seem to help though

Bulldogs_4_life · 03-08-2010, 09:46 PM

Jarrad Maxwell is probably the worst of the lot.

rule_the_roost · 03-08-2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulldogs_4_life

Jarrad Maxwell is probably the worst of the lot.

badger??? lol he is deadset useless

slickerthansleek · 03-08-2010, 10:09 PM

Badger, Klein and Cummins are the worst IMO.

Warriors · 03-08-2010, 10:39 PM

Shayne Hayne IMO. Heck they all need to improve, even Archer after Sundays effort (He's still top dog IMO)

WannabePopper · 04-08-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rule_the_roost

i reckon it should be whatever the ref calls goes...
look at soccer, biggest game in the world nd thats how they do it

And look at the issues they had with the World Cup this year. The increase in video technology and feeds to the networks enabled the broadcasters to pick up so many ref errors that FIFA have finally announced they will be using more technology from now on (read - ANY technology).

raysie · 04-08-2010, 05:02 PM

It's the referees you don't remember that are reffing the best.

justanotherleaguefan · 04-08-2010, 10:13 PM

In some areas the referees need to be a little bolder and in other areas, they need to re-read the rule books.
What drives me crazy is when they're right there in front of a try and they still have to go to video ref. You have eyes and a freakin whistle. Call the thing and get on with it!

Bronco_josh · 04-08-2010, 10:38 PM

Im a referee, and yes, while the standard of refereeing is poor, alot has to do with the rules.

The media has always bagged them for the hitting the kicker rule, but I haven't seen a bad one all year. NOW, BEFORE EVERYONE CRIES FOUL ABOUT THAT STATEMENT, READ THE RULE BOOK !!!!

If a player shoulder charges, or attacks the kicking leg of a player kicking the ball, it is an immediate penalty. However, if a kicker is tackled, it should be play on. Saw an instance last week, which showed the rule spot on, where a Souths (I think) player was tackled after the kick, and no penalty was given.

I have not seen a single penalty given for after the kick indiscretions, to be wrong this year, to the letter of the law. However, when we have common sense, then alot of them should be penalties.

Alot has to do with the laws of the game

raysie · 04-08-2010, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_josh

Im a referee, and yes, while the standard of refereeing is poor, alot has to do with the rules.

The media has always bagged them for the hitting the kicker rule, but I haven't seen a bad one all year. NOW, BEFORE EVERYONE CRIES FOUL ABOUT THAT STATEMENT, READ THE RULE BOOK !!!!

If a player shoulder charges, or attacks the kicking leg of a player kicking the ball, it is an immediate penalty. However, if a kicker is tackled, it should be play on. Saw an instance last week, which showed the rule spot on, where a Souths (I think) player was tackled after the kick, and no penalty was given.

I have not seen a single penalty given for after the kick indiscretions, to be wrong this year, to the letter of the law. However, when we have common sense, then alot of them should be penalties.

Alot has to do with the laws of the game

I've never seen someone be so wrong. Have you seen how many soft tackles have been pulled up in recent weeks? None were tackled late, with the shoulder nor at the legs.

The rule has become a complete farce.

WannabePopper · 05-08-2010, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_josh

Im a referee, and yes, while the standard of refereeing is poor, alot has to do with the rules.

The media has always bagged them for the hitting the kicker rule, but I haven't seen a bad one all year. NOW, BEFORE EVERYONE CRIES FOUL ABOUT THAT STATEMENT, READ THE RULE BOOK !!!!

If a player shoulder charges, or attacks the kicking leg of a player kicking the ball, it is an immediate penalty. However, if a kicker is tackled, it should be play on. Saw an instance last week, which showed the rule spot on, where a Souths (I think) player was tackled after the kick, and no penalty was given.

I have not seen a single penalty given for after the kick indiscretions, to be wrong this year, to the letter of the law. However, when we have common sense, then alot of them should be penalties.

Alot has to do with the laws of the game

Corey Parker's one against (I think it was) the Bulldogs. Penalised. Shouldn't have been.

Last week, same thing against the Bulldogs, can't remember the player, not penalised. And, seeing as Parker's was, it should have been. Although, IMO, the Souths vs Bulldogs one was a lot more dangerous, because Kimmorley was in the air.

That rule and the way the refs police it is, Raysie used the perfect word, a farce.

Consistency is the sole problem with the reffing.