@ said:
I don't think that the guys in the middle are totally at fault. The NRL continually stuff around with the rules and interpretations. They have got themselves into this position over many years of "managing" the game rather than refereeing it. At the basic level the rules are fairly simple.
Get rid of rules that allow various interpretations (you could do a doctorate thesis on the obstruction rule interpretation), have a set of rules and apply them in every instance. There will be mistakes, but these are easier to swallow if:
- there is a lot less grey area
- the referees are consistent in applying the rules
- they are willing to stick their hands up & own their decisions, including admitting a mistake rather than trying to introduce more grey are through trying to justify a garbage decision.
I agree with Tiger Steve, that this idea of removing interpretation is simply not possible. With 26 bodies all moving on-field at once, in 3D space, there will always be instances where an event has a split interpretation, i.e. half the people think one thing and half another.
An example is the Dylan Napa headbutt the other week. Refs called it out, post-match review said it was ok, Ch 9 commentators said it was an accident, lots of fans thought it was reckless. How can you remove interpretation from that incident? I mean he made contact with the head, so it's a clear penalty, but in terms of suspension and/or sin bin.
I believe there are two main issues with refereeing today.
Issue number one is that video technology and social media exist, so you can't avoid having the video ref (VR) and you can't avoid people talking about decisions in large numbers. In my youth, there were constant howlers from the refs, but everyone just had to cop them on the chin because there was limited technology to support the ref and you basically complained to your Dad, the kids at school / blokes at work, then moved on.
So anyone who says take out the VR or use less VR aren't being realistic. Everyone expects close calls to be reviewed, and refs who make live decisions without assistance take a big risk of making the wrong call. At least, if the VR looks at it, they might interpret it oddly but it's based on multiple camera views etc., i.e. it's fairly exhaustive. And considering how often on-field refs go to the VR, tells you how fast the game is and how often refs are making best-guess calls on what they've just observed.
The only solution to the VR is to remove it completely, which people just won't accept. And in some instances the VR is quite good, e.g. in-goal decisions or illegal play that was missed. I don't hear anyone complaining when the VR intercedes on an in-goal contest and over-rules the on-field ref.
In terms of social media, footy experiences part of the wider-society issue of narrowed positive confirmation, where if you go searching the internet for commentary on topics that concern you, you tend to find confirmatory information that reinforces your view. E.g. if you look up "refereeing mistake Tigers v Dragons" you aren't going to be directed to a reddit discussion where everyone was commending the referee performance. In contrast, even within this forum where we are all rabid Tigers fans and therefore of a fairly narrow mindset vs wider society, many opinions are split 50/50.
Second issue facing refs this year is the excessive refereeing. I believe they are just setting themselves up to fail. They should be blowing fewer penalties, not more. They should not be trying to "clean" anything up, it's just a mistake. All the fan, team, coach, commentator frustration this year is not about the volume of penalties, but because of the inconsistency it introduces by default. I think Joey said it on the weekend, if you look at any given ruck situation, of which there are hundreds per game, you could realistically blow technical penalties on most of them. If you only blow the occasional penalty for obvious instances, you remove most of the controversy about what you didn't blow penalties for. I.e. blowing very technical penalties regularly, you are just going to expose all the technicalities you missed. This is the prime issue with rugby union and the idiots at HQ have decided to go in that direction.
It also bring in the idea of "leveler" penalties, where fans believe refs equalise penalty counts to avoid scrutiny of a biased performance. It should actually be quite feasible that one team is better disciplined than another, but yes oddly enough penalty counts do tend to even out. So when you blow 25 penalties, a count of 20-5 is just going to look bad. But if you blow 6 penalties, there's less margin for discrepancy between worst and best behaved side.
Anyone who thinks the players are just going to start behaving are naive. They get tired and they push the rules constantly. If you rule severely, they won't learn, they'll just find ways to deal with the penalty counts. That's already evident this year, where rather than being afraid of penalties and sin-bins, many teams have figured out they can defend their line pretty well and actually the penalties provide short breathers.
Origin was ruled differently and the game was better for it. Nobody wants games decided by referees, that just sucks, it cruels the loser and robs the winner of proper satisfaction.
I appreciate CFK for the OP insight, thank you. I've always had some ambition to try and ref and give back, but my kids are little and I haven't the time. Maybe when they grow up later.
