HAPPY THAT OUR COACH IS IVAN CLEARY

[Russell]

Has the referring standard declined or has the camera work got better. I think we are nearly better off without the bunker. Let the refs make calls in real time at game speed. Slowing the replays down to frame by frame speed is crazy.

I also think the NRL has to start binning players who rush in and give the ref a gob full. I know in the heat of the moment it is not to react but the ref has to be given space and respect

When it goes to the bunker I don't think the ref should have to award it a try/no try. They can't be sure and it's the reason it's going to the bunker. They should just send it to the bunker without influencing the decision.

I totally agree - the ref should award the try if he is 100% sure.

If he is not (he makes no decision) and goes to the bunker. Simple as that really.

[ricksen]

Just on another note, people say they don't want the game decided on penalties like in rugby, so are you happy to see teams continue to infringe because its the percentage play1 and at worst they concede two points. I say time to start using the bin again for repeat offenders

I'm all for this. It should be 5 mins and it should be handed out aggressively to repeat offenders at the ref's discretion, no monkeying about for repeat penalties.

10 mins is too long, too game changing and that's why they reserve it for professional fouls. But 5 mins would be perfect for repeat offenders.

I agree with this - repeat penalties in the attacking 20m should be an instant 5 in the bin. Teams are far too happy to push the boundaries inside their own 20 as they know they'll get away with at least some indiscretions.

[05TIGZ]

Has the referring standard declined or has the camera work got better. I think we are nearly better off without the bunker. Let the refs make calls in real time at game speed. Slowing the replays down to frame by frame speed is crazy.

I also think the NRL has to start binning players who rush in and give the ref a gob full. I know in the heat of the moment it is not to react but the ref has to be given space and respect

When it goes to the bunker I don't think the ref should have to award it a try/no try. They can't be sure and it's the reason it's going to the bunker. They should just send it to the bunker without influencing the decision.

I totally agree - the ref should award the try if he is 100% sure.

If he is not (he makes no decision) and goes to the bunker. Simple as that really.

Yep it's common sense. Ref gives try, if he isn't sure goes upstairs. Bunker has to have conclusive evidence that it's a try.

[VanillaThunder]

Has the referring standard declined or has the camera work got better. I think we are nearly better off without the bunker. Let the refs make calls in real time at game speed. Slowing the replays down to frame by frame speed is crazy.

I also think the NRL has to start binning players who rush in and give the ref a gob full. I know in the heat of the moment it is not to react but the ref has to be given space and respect

When it goes to the bunker I don't think the ref should have to award it a try/no try. They can't be sure and it's the reason it's going to the bunker. They should just send it to the bunker without influencing the decision.

I totally agree - the ref should award the try if he is 100% sure.

If he is not (he makes no decision) and goes to the bunker. Simple as that really.

Yep it's common sense. Ref gives try, if he isn't sure goes upstairs. Bunker has to have conclusive evidence that it's a try.

Then we end up in a scenario like last year where refs are sending almost every decision they can upstairs because then they're absolved of blame and avoid the ridiculous whinging of coaches.
I like the current system. Without technology a ref has to make a call, the way it is now, he's doing that, and if there's enough evidence to prove him wrong then it's changed. Sounds fair to me. "Inconclusive evidence" has been the best thing to happen to refereeing lately.

[GNR4LIFE]

When it goes to the bunker I don't think the ref should have to award it a try/no try. They can't be sure and it's the reason it's going to the bunker. They should just send it to the bunker without influencing the decision.

I totally agree - the ref should award the try if he is 100% sure.

If he is not (he makes no decision) and goes to the bunker. Simple as that really.

Yep it's common sense. Ref gives try, if he isn't sure goes upstairs. Bunker has to have conclusive evidence that it's a try.

Then we end up in a scenario like last year where refs are sending almost every decision they can upstairs because then they're absolved of blame and avoid the ridiculous whinging of coaches.
I like the current system. Without technology a ref has to make a call, the way it is now, he's doing that, and if there's enough evidence to prove him wrong then it's changed. Sounds fair to me. "Inconclusive evidence" has been the best thing to happen to refereeing lately.

It's common sense that unless there's evidence, the bunker should be obliged to stick with the onfield ref's decision. It's like umpires call in cricket.

[Fade To Black]

Nearly swallowed me tongue when Paul Kent stated on NRL 360 last night "that the refereeing has never been better". Holy smokes, he had to have been geeing up surely? What a stupid statement.

[goldcoast tiger]

The Nrl want to go back to the Harigan days of stuff all penalties and a fast flowing match and that has some merit. The problem we face now all come back to the wrestle and how far teams are willing to push it. It has slowed the play the ball down and causes so much frustration for everyone. The Sharks were not interested in playing football, it was all wrestle and niggle and the wonder why the ref got frustrated.

Its time to clean up the play the ball and not just for the first 20 minutes. They have to be hard and fair.

Just on another note, people say they don't want the game decided on penalties like in rugby, so are you happy to see teams continue to infringe because its the percentage play1 and at worst they concede two points. I say time to start using the bin again for repeat offenders

As you've seen on this post. Some don't want the rules to be used, , because they don't want penalties. It's either , play by the rules, or take the rules out of the book. Why have a rule that isn't being policed, or is policed today , and not tomorrow. The penalties might be a pain in the butt, but how long do you think it will take for Coaches to realise that they are copping losses if they keep going the way it is.
The Coaches will be the ones that will get their teams playing by the rules if the Refs continually apply them.
4 week crackdowns do nothing, as the Refs always go back to the easy way. They just have to ride out the first few games and it's open slather again.
And if they start by binning ANYONE who gives the Refs a gobfull , that would shut up the dissent anyway. Only talk to a Captain, and only to answer a query, and if he wants to debate the answer, sit him down for 5 mins. I'm sick of seeing the way it chops and changes as to which rule will be flavour of the month this month.

Refs make mistakes. But if they used the same rule book and actually Reffed to the rules, their jobs would be simplified.

As for turning into Rugby, that's rubbish, Union is so technical that even the refs have trouble remembering what they are. League is a much simpler game( especially now that there no competition at the scrum) . Stop interpreting rules, Just play by them.

[Geo.]

I quite like the idea of the naughty corner floating around for continual infringements inside the 20...where the offender must sit out the Set of six behind the dead ball line...I would go 1 step further and keep removing a player if another penalty is conceded and keep doing it..Once the attacking team scores they come back on...not as harsh as a 5 or 10min bin..

May encourage teams to go for TRIES rather than taking the 2..

[GNR4LIFE]

I quite like the idea of the naughty corner floating around for continual infringements inside the 20...where the offender must sit out the Set of six behind the dead ball line...I would go 1 step further and keep removing a player if another penalty is conceded and keep doing it..Once the attacking team scores they come back on...not as harsh as a 5 or 10min bin..

May encourage teams to go for TRIES rather than taking the 2..

It would stop teams playing dead in the ruck, that's for sure. It's become am absolute joke this year the way teams purposely give away penalties in the red zone.

[goldcoast tiger]

I quite like the idea of the naughty corner floating around for continual infringements inside the 20...where the offender must sit out the Set of six behind the dead ball line...I would go 1 step further and keep removing a player if another penalty is conceded and keep doing it..Once the attacking team scores they come back on...not as harsh as a 5 or 10min bin..

May encourage teams to go for TRIES rather than taking the 2..

Seems Fair.

[upthetigers]

I totally agree - the ref should award the try if he is 100% sure.

If he is not (he makes no decision) and goes to the bunker. Simple as that really.

Yep it's common sense. Ref gives try, if he isn't sure goes upstairs. Bunker has to have conclusive evidence that it's a try.

Then we end up in a scenario like last year where refs are sending almost every decision they can upstairs because then they're absolved of blame and avoid the ridiculous whinging of coaches.
I like the current system. Without technology a ref has to make a call, the way it is now, he's doing that, and if there's enough evidence to prove him wrong then it's changed. Sounds fair to me. "Inconclusive evidence" has been the best thing to happen to refereeing lately.

It's common sense that unless there's evidence, the bunker should be obliged to stick with the onfield ref's decision. It's like umpires call in cricket.

The onfield ref is guessing though, hence why it's being sent to the bunker. If they can't be sure they can't be sure they may not have full sight of the play.

Concerning every decision being sent to the bunker since refs don't want to cop criticism from making bad calls, there are systems that could be put in place to deal with this issue. One that comes to mind is that the NRL could simply look at the percentage of decisions being referred to the bunker and those above a certain percentage could be deemed incompetence and dismissal from your job. Pretty good way to prevent refs from blindly always going to the bunker and slowing down the game.

[05TIGZ]

I totally agree - the ref should award the try if he is 100% sure.

If he is not (he makes no decision) and goes to the bunker. Simple as that really.

Yep it's common sense. Ref gives try, if he isn't sure goes upstairs. Bunker has to have conclusive evidence that it's a try.

Then we end up in a scenario like last year where refs are sending almost every decision they can upstairs because then they're absolved of blame and avoid the ridiculous whinging of coaches.
I like the current system. Without technology a ref has to make a call, the way it is now, he's doing that, and if there's enough evidence to prove him wrong then it's changed. Sounds fair to me. "Inconclusive evidence" has been the best thing to happen to refereeing lately.

It's common sense that unless there's evidence, the bunker should be obliged to stick with the onfield ref's decision. It's like umpires call in cricket.

If you watched any footy( which I don't think you do) you would see that the current system isn't working. So it's not so common sense. If it was, we wouldn't be talking about the bunker continuously making wrong decisions.

[GNR4LIFE]

Yep it's common sense. Ref gives try, if he isn't sure goes upstairs. Bunker has to have conclusive evidence that it's a try.

Then we end up in a scenario like last year where refs are sending almost every decision they can upstairs because then they're absolved of blame and avoid the ridiculous whinging of coaches.
I like the current system. Without technology a ref has to make a call, the way it is now, he's doing that, and if there's enough evidence to prove him wrong then it's changed. Sounds fair to me. "Inconclusive evidence" has been the best thing to happen to refereeing lately.

It's common sense that unless there's evidence, the bunker should be obliged to stick with the onfield ref's decision. It's like umpires call in cricket.

If you watched any footy( which I don't think you do) you would see that the current system isn't working. So it's not so common sense. If it was, we wouldn't be talking about the bunker continuously making wrong decisions.

Nah, it is common sense.

[Tweed Tiger]

If the ref sends a decision up and they don't make a call, and there is no conclusive evidence either way what decision do they make? I think the ref has to make a decision based on what they and the other onfield officials saw and the bunker goes from there.

[Red Rugby]

Apparently his son is pretty impressed with Dad's recruiting....

Nathan why don't you come to the Tigers we have a fantastic mentor for you....

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... ygj7a.html

[TripleB]

I agree with the idea of 5 in the bin for repeated infringements. I would take it a step further and go with the soccer approach that you get a yellow card when you get 5 in the bin and if you get 2 in one game you are sent off and you get an automatic suspension. You would also get an automatic suspension if you get 5 yellow cards in a season.

[MightyMaggy]

I agree with the idea of 5 in the bin for repeated infringements. I would take it a step further and go with the soccer approach that you get a yellow card when you get 5 in the bin and if you get 2 in one game you are sent off and you get an automatic suspension. You would also get an automatic suspension if you get 5 yellow cards in a season.

x2