HAPPY THAT OUR COACH IS IVAN CLEARY

[jirskyr]

Yes, the reffing has declined. The biggest mistake in this games history in regards to refs came about with Bill Harrigan and his "feel for the game" and own interpretation of rules.

There's a book, it has all the rules of Rugby League in it. The writing is in black ink, the background is white. There is no grey. If referees, ref to the rules, then how can you make a mistake? Funny how in Rugby, the ball still gets put in the middle of the scrum, because if you don't put it in the middle, it's a friggin penalty!!! Thats what it says in the rule book. Want to tidy up the play the balls in our game? Then penalise players who don't play the ball correctly. There has been too much emphasis on letting the game flow, and it's come at the expense of enforcing the rules. If there's no rules or they aren't enforced you have anarchy and a power struggle and unfortunately the players and coaches have had the upper hand in that struggle for quite sometime.
The refs are there to make sure the game is played according to the rules, if they aren't going to enforce them then we don't require refs, it's that simple really.

Great post F1,rules are rules they outline and define our game,changing them will inevitably change the original game to something else under its banner..

No offence but you want the game to be reffed more like rugby? Please no.

If you blow the pea out of the whistle the game will be worse off than what we have now. I honestly feel rugby is a joke for exactly that reason.

No i want the game to be reffed like Rugby League. I want it to be reffed according to the rules.
Look at line dropouts. How many times is the dropout taken in front of the goal line? Its not a major thing, but somebody ( i think maybe it was Reynolds) got penalised for it because it was "too far" passed the line. Thats the correct call as the dropout needs to be taken from on or behind the tryline. The issue of course comes from what is my interpretation of "too far" in front of the line as opposed to yours? Straight away we have inconsistency from one ref to the next, and thats what kills this game. If the rule was enforced it is black and white and the dropout is taken in front of the goal line it's a penalty EVERY time, not just when it's "too far" in someones opinion.

OK but what you are describing is too technical and I believe it would be to the detriment of the game.

I don't mean reffing to union rules, I meant reffing all aspects of the game with extreme technicality, the way rugby does. Refs in rugby hold way too much power and penalties are far too important in the context of the match. I just can't understand a code where a team can win simply by having a sharp shooter like Johnny Wilkins to slot penalties from anywhere inside the half.

So fair enough you can heavily police drop-outs. And you can bring back every tap or touch-finder that isn't taken exactly on the mark. You can have both refs stringently penalising anyone with a foot offside at the kickoff. You can penalise players for not touching the footy with their foot in the PTB, and you can change the rule back to force all penalty taps to be taken with a released football.

But seriously what kind of game would that be to watch? People already complain about the influence of the refs in the games, and you are advocating they have more influence and police more heavily.

There's a reason why State of Origin is so good - not just because of the quality of the teams, but because the refs give fairly wide latitude on rule interpretations. The matches are better for it. Now I don't think you can rule 26 rounds of club matches like Origin, there'd be too much leeway over a whole season, but I believe the less the refs are forced to blow penalties and make calls on things that have minimal impact on the match, the better the game is.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Sharks had a 65% completion rate and missed over 30 tackles….but it's the ref fault according to the coach.

And what something like 17 errors?

#refsfault

Gallen was being classic Gallen. Tried to play the hero, and then tried to play the ref and lost both times. He spends the whole game looking for penalties so the refs wise up to him. He's a victim of his own doing.

 

[supercoach]

Cleary doesn't have to rave and rant, he has this ability to show people he is not pleased with a icey cold stare that can cut people to shreds or some very well selected words that are sharp and pointed. He strikes me as a person who is always in control of the situation

 

[BalmainBoy]

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.

They used to do that and I'm sure it was worse.. you need a tie breaker for the 50/50 calls such as the weekend … i think any system has pros and cons.. maybe refs rule a try... coaches can challenge ala NFL and the red flag - maybe limit to three challenges.. logistically difficult as NFL is a different game and the coach is usually in the box and not on the sideline next to the refs / umpires.. however, putting it on the coaches might limit the damage to the game of these constant sooks like Flanagan, Stuart, Barrett etc.

 

[05TIGZ]

Doesn't it happen to every coach.

Does at our club.

Because we keep hiring crap coaches.

Or coaches who have had both arms tied behind their backs. Cleary walking in to our club when he did with the freedom to paint with a blank canvas would be the envy of most coaches. Definitely made his job easier in comparison to previous coaches.

It's amazing how you manage to bring up and defend JT in any thread possible. This thread is about Cleary and how good he is. You must be related to him, there has to be more to it.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Does at our club.

Because we keep hiring crap coaches.

Or coaches who have had both arms tied behind their backs. Cleary walking in to our club when he did with the freedom to paint with a blank canvas would be the envy of most coaches. Definitely made his job easier in comparison to previous coaches.

It's amazing how you manage to bring up and defend JT in any thread possible. This thread is about Cleary and how good he is. You must be related to him, there has to be more to it.

I don't even need to use bait because you always take the hook.

 

[Furious1]

Great post F1,rules are rules they outline and define our game,changing them will inevitably change the original game to something else under its banner..

No offence but you want the game to be reffed more like rugby? Please no.

If you blow the pea out of the whistle the game will be worse off than what we have now. I honestly feel rugby is a joke for exactly that reason.

No i want the game to be reffed like Rugby League. I want it to be reffed according to the rules.
Look at line dropouts. How many times is the dropout taken in front of the goal line? Its not a major thing, but somebody ( i think maybe it was Reynolds) got penalised for it because it was "too far" passed the line. Thats the correct call as the dropout needs to be taken from on or behind the tryline. The issue of course comes from what is my interpretation of "too far" in front of the line as opposed to yours? Straight away we have inconsistency from one ref to the next, and thats what kills this game. If the rule was enforced it is black and white and the dropout is taken in front of the goal line it's a penalty EVERY time, not just when it's "too far" in someones opinion.

OK but what you are describing is too technical and I believe it would be to the detriment of the game.

I don't mean reffing to union rules, I meant reffing all aspects of the game with extreme technicality, the way rugby does. Refs in rugby hold way too much power and penalties are far too important in the context of the match. I just can't understand a code where a team can win simply by having a sharp shooter like Johnny Wilkins to slot penalties from anywhere inside the half.

So fair enough you can heavily police drop-outs. And you can bring back every tap or touch-finder that isn't taken exactly on the mark. You can have both refs stringently penalising anyone with a foot offside at the kickoff. You can penalise players for not touching the footy with their foot in the PTB, and you can change the rule back to force all penalty taps to be taken with a released football.

But seriously what kind of game would that be to watch? People already complain about the influence of the refs in the games, and you are advocating they have more influence and police more heavily.

There's a reason why State of Origin is so good - not just because of the quality of the teams, but because the refs give fairly wide latitude on rule interpretations. The matches are better for it. Now I don't think you can rule 26 rounds of club matches like Origin, there'd be too much leeway over a whole season, but I believe the less the refs are forced to blow penalties and make calls on things that have minimal impact on the match, the better the game is.

I understand what you are saying and agree to a certain extent, but the inconsistencies in policing the rules is what drives fans up the wall. Its only become this way because the rules haven't been policed properley in the first place. So how far off the mark are we going to allow? How long in the tackles? So is one foot offside allowed but two not? Or does it depend on who the ref is this week? Thats why it's in black and white, the line is drawn in the sand so there is consistency. Anyway i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[supercoach]

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

 

[05TIGZ]

Because we keep hiring crap coaches.

Or coaches who have had both arms tied behind their backs. Cleary walking in to our club when he did with the freedom to paint with a blank canvas would be the envy of most coaches. Definitely made his job easier in comparison to previous coaches.

It's amazing how you manage to bring up and defend JT in any thread possible. This thread is about Cleary and how good he is. You must be related to him, there has to be more to it.

I don't even need to use bait because you always take the hook.

Obsessed. Okay Mrs Taylor lol lol lol lol lol.

 

[05TIGZ]

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

Agree with you 100%. The other thing that I notice which you don't really see on tv is that teams are ofside on almost every tackle. They move up before the hooker gets the ball, and the refs won't penalise it unless it's blatant.

 

[colmcd]

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

Agree with you 100%. The other thing that I notice which you don't really see on tv is that teams are ofside on almost every tackle. They move up before the hooker gets the ball, and the refs won't penalise it unless it's blatant.

Bring back the Bin!
People say that 10 minutes is too long off. Ok, 5 minute bin.

Instead we see high shots, oh my team looses their star, the match and their season. Great the other team looses some rookie on a 6 week ban and my team gets…. NOTHING

I also think we need to make Penalities 1 point and try conversions 1 point. Push teams to score tries, make the incentive to cross the line.

 

[jirskyr]

I understand what you are saying and agree to a certain extent, but the inconsistencies in policing the rules is what drives fans up the wall. Its only become this way because the rules haven't been policed properley in the first place. So how far off the mark are we going to allow? How long in the tackles? So is one foot offside allowed but two not? Or does it depend on who the ref is this week? Thats why it's in black and white, the line is drawn in the sand so there is consistency. Anyway i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But don't you think the inconsistencies will always exist, so long as a human is in charge and so long as there exist rules that intentionally introduce the opinion or interpretation of the ref?

Taking your examples - how far off the mark do we indeed allow a player to step? Zero? Half a metre? Who then determines the distance they have over-stepped and what do you do if they step over the mark? What if they step 6 inches forward, must the ref send them back to the mark or penalise in the interests of pure consistency?

Or how long can a player hold down the opposition in a tackle? The official rule and NRL interpretation 2016 says attackers _"shall be immediately released’ by the defender and/or defenders"_ at the completion of a tackle. Is it even realistic for defenders to immediately release, in terms of physics? They usually do need to get to their feet themselves and release their arms, not an immediate act by any measure of time, and for multiple defenders that also usually means a sequential release of bodies (i.e. you can't get up immediately if someone is lying on top of you). And then it becomes tricky because of the 4 methods of being tackled (held ball arm on ground, held upright no momentum, submission/succumbing, lying on ground with a defender touching), 2 of these are subject to referee interpretation, to decide exactly when players have submitted or are held upright.

In which case you reach the current paradigm - that refs call held for non-grounding tackles and oversee the immediate release of defenders, immediate being somewhat subjective in the pace of the game. I guarantee you though that refs have markers or guides for counting off tackle speed, with the intention of introducing as much consistency as possible.

Because honestly I look at the rule book and many rules aren't in black and white, they are subject to interpretation or even intentionally at the discretion of the ref.

 

[jirskyr]

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.

 

[Mr_Magpie]

I reckon having Cleary is a huge plus for our Tigers. The players know who is boss, he gets rid of the trouble and, football-wise, is doing a great job on our game - defence especially.
Watching the Finals on the weekend I just knew Flanagan and Barret would spit the dummy. Fair enough to be dirty but the way they did it achieved nothing except $20000 fines.

 

[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.