One ref

[happy_tiger]

The refs just need to call a penalty. The captain of the team getting the penalty just needs to call '6 to go' if he wishes and away we go. A bit like the quick tap.
Sin bins will be at the refs discretion as usual but no warnings.
I think ssome just want this to be hard.

Like it Gal , and then at the end of the set you sin bin the player if the ref pleases ...simple

 

[gallagher]

The refs just need to call a penalty. The captain of the team getting the penalty just needs to call '6 to go' if he wishes and away we go. A bit like the quick tap.
Sin bins will be at the refs discretion as usual but no warnings.
I think ssome just want this to be hard.

Like it Gal , and then at the end of the set you sin bin the player if the ref pleases ...simple

It really is simple.

 

[mike]

Tim Mander weighs in

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/tim-mander-s-warning-to-nrl-referees/fb967bd2-9a35-420d-bb51-95f2d9f96c0e?ocid=Social-NRLFS

One of the NRL's most decorated whistleblowers has emerged as a significant supporter of a return to one referee, saying the two-ref system was "based on a false premise".
Tim Mander, now Queensland's deputy opposition leader, controlled 291 first-grade games including the 2004 and 2005 grand finals and has an ominous word of warning for today's lot threatening the NRL's May 28 restart.
"What I've learnt in my new game in the world of politics is that you need to know what public sentiment is and you need to be acutely aware of that and be able to respond to it. So they're on very delicate ground," Mander told 2GB radio.
"And they need to be very, very careful because you don't have enormous amounts of sympathy for referees anyhow so you don't want to add to that at all.


Mander is fully supportive of one on-field official.

"I never really agreed with going to two referees. It was based on a false premise," he said.
"And that premise was that referees got fatigued and therefore that effected their decision-making ability and I don't think there were any statistics or any data that supported that whatsoever and I don't think two referees added anything to that.
"In fact, you could argue that it's caused confusion."


The Fair Work Commission will resolve the dispute between the referees' union after peace talks failed on Tuesday and Mander is unsure how it will play out.
"I'm not in the inner sanctum and I suppose where I have some sympathy for the referees is that the vibe I'm getting is the vibe that's been there for decades in regards to referees and that they're treated like a necessary evil and as a afterthought by the administration," he said.


"So I would have liked to have thought that the rugby league administration would have consulted with the referees, would have sought their opinion then would make sure it was communicated clearly.
"I suspect that the main reason that the referees responded the way that they are is that they may feel as though they haven't been treated with respect.
"So all I'm saying is that I would just ask that the rugby league treats them with respect, communicates with them clearly, lets them know how valued they are.
"In saying all that, at the moment what we've got to do is look at the good of the game and we all want rugby league to be back and the last thing we want is anybody jeopardising that.
"In this current situation where there have been tens of thousands of people out of work, anybody who's got a job - and I'm in this category - we are incredibly grateful that we have got work and we shouldn't be greedy at all."

 

[happy_tiger]

Tim Mander weighs in

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/tim-mander-s-warning-to-nrl-referees/fb967bd2-9a35-420d-bb51-95f2d9f96c0e?ocid=Social-NRLFS

One of the NRL's most decorated whistleblowers has emerged as a significant supporter of a return to one referee, saying the two-ref system was "based on a false premise".
Tim Mander, now Queensland's deputy opposition leader, controlled 291 first-grade games including the 2004 and 2005 grand finals and has an ominous word of warning for today's lot threatening the NRL's May 28 restart.
"What I've learnt in my new game in the world of politics is that you need to know what public sentiment is and you need to be acutely aware of that and be able to respond to it. So they're on very delicate ground," Mander told 2GB radio.
"And they need to be very, very careful because you don't have enormous amounts of sympathy for referees anyhow so you don't want to add to that at all.


Mander is fully supportive of one on-field official.

"I never really agreed with going to two referees. It was based on a false premise," he said.
"And that premise was that referees got fatigued and therefore that effected their decision-making ability and I don't think there were any statistics or any data that supported that whatsoever and I don't think two referees added anything to that.
"In fact, you could argue that it's caused confusion."


The Fair Work Commission will resolve the dispute between the referees' union after peace talks failed on Tuesday and Mander is unsure how it will play out.
"I'm not in the inner sanctum and I suppose where I have some sympathy for the referees is that the vibe I'm getting is the vibe that's been there for decades in regards to referees and that they're treated like a necessary evil and as a afterthought by the administration," he said.


"So I would have liked to have thought that the rugby league administration would have consulted with the referees, would have sought their opinion then would make sure it was communicated clearly.
"I suspect that the main reason that the referees responded the way that they are is that they may feel as though they haven't been treated with respect.
"So all I'm saying is that I would just ask that the rugby league treats them with respect, communicates with them clearly, lets them know how valued they are.
"In saying all that, at the moment what we've got to do is look at the good of the game and we all want rugby league to be back and the last thing we want is anybody jeopardising that.
"In this current situation where there have been tens of thousands of people out of work, anybody who's got a job - and I'm in this category - we are incredibly grateful that we have got work and we shouldn't be greedy at all."

Woo hoo needs to stop the Boo hoo ...thanks for 2005 Timmy

 

[cochise]

The refs just need to call a penalty. The captain of the team getting the penalty just needs to call '6 to go' if he wishes and away we go. A bit like the quick tap.
Sin bins will be at the refs discretion as usual but no warnings.
I think ssome just want this to be hard.

So no change to what it is now?

 

[gallagher]

The refs just need to call a penalty. The captain of the team getting the penalty just needs to call '6 to go' if he wishes and away we go. A bit like the quick tap.
Sin bins will be at the refs discretion as usual but no warnings.
I think ssome just want this to be hard.

So no change to what it is now?

No, the attacking team can play the ball. No standing around waiting for the refs and opposition to get set for the tap

 

[cochise]

The refs just need to call a penalty. The captain of the team getting the penalty just needs to call '6 to go' if he wishes and away we go. A bit like the quick tap.
Sin bins will be at the refs discretion as usual but no warnings.
I think ssome just want this to be hard.

So no change to what it is now?

No, the attacking team can play the ball. No standing around waiting for the refs and opposition to get set for the tap

So its actually a disadvantage as they have 2 markers in front of them?

 

[cochise]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

 

[gallagher]

The refs just need to call a penalty. The captain of the team getting the penalty just needs to call '6 to go' if he wishes and away we go. A bit like the quick tap.
Sin bins will be at the refs discretion as usual but no warnings.
I think ssome just want this to be hard.

So no change to what it is now?

No, the attacking team can play the ball. No standing around waiting for the refs and opposition to get set for the tap

So its actually a disadvantage as they have 2 markers in front of them?

If the decision cane that late that they were set. If they're not set you get a great advantage close to the line.

 

[gallagher]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

 

[cochise]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

 

[gallagher]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

That will create a grey area for infringements within goal shot. One teams gets a penalty and takes the 2 then the other team only gets 6 to go a bit later. I dont like it if thats gonna be the rule.

 

[cochise]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

That will create a grey area for infringements within goal shot. One teams gets a penalty and takes the 2 then the other team only gets 6 to go a bit later. I dont like it if thats gonna be the rule.

Penalties are going to be extremely rare.

 

[gallagher]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

That will create a grey area for infringements within goal shot. One teams gets a penalty and takes the 2 then the other team only gets 6 to go a bit later. I dont like it if thats gonna be the rule.

Penalties are going to be extremely rare.

But you can guess at which stage of the game and what position of the field the favourite will get that penalty.

 

[innsaneink]

Yea it's easy to see the possible inequity... Leaving it up to the ref to decide on a whim either penalty or 6 more without players and fans knowing just where their team stands at any given moment will cause a lot of angst

 

[JC99]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

That will create a grey area for infringements within goal shot. One teams gets a penalty and takes the 2 then the other team only gets 6 to go a bit later. I dont like it if thats gonna be the rule.

Penalties are going to be extremely rare.

But you can guess at which stage of the game and what position of the field the favourite will get that penalty.

You just know the big teams will get penalties at the right times. Just more inequality to the rules.

If they’re that desperate to do the 6 again thing, there should be no penalties at all. Warn the players and bin them for repeated infringements, no penalty needed.

Personally think they should just stick with penalties and just let teams do a quick play the ball instead of a quick tap wherever they feel like even inside the 10.

 

[gallagher]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

That will create a grey area for infringements within goal shot. One teams gets a penalty and takes the 2 then the other team only gets 6 to go a bit later. I dont like it if thats gonna be the rule.

Penalties are going to be extremely rare.

But you can guess at which stage of the game and what position of the field the favourite will get that penalty.

You just know the big teams will get penalties at the right times. Just more inequality to the rules.

If they’re that desperate to do the 6 again thing, there should be no penalties at all. Warn the players and bin them for repeated infringements, no penalty needed.

Personally think they should just stick with penalties and just let teams do a quick play the ball instead of a quick tap wherever they feel like even inside the 10.

Thats a good idea aswell, probably better than 6 to go the more i think of it. They just need to relax about taking it exactly on the mark.

 

[JC99]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

That will create a grey area for infringements within goal shot. One teams gets a penalty and takes the 2 then the other team only gets 6 to go a bit later. I dont like it if thats gonna be the rule.

Penalties are going to be extremely rare.

But you can guess at which stage of the game and what position of the field the favourite will get that penalty.

You just know the big teams will get penalties at the right times. Just more inequality to the rules.

If they’re that desperate to do the 6 again thing, there should be no penalties at all. Warn the players and bin them for repeated infringements, no penalty needed.

Personally think they should just stick with penalties and just let teams do a quick play the ball instead of a quick tap wherever they feel like even inside the 10.

Thats a good idea aswell, probably better than 6 to go the more i think of it. They just need to relax about taking it exactly on the mark.

I hate how pedantic they are about that, they do it with play the balls too. Stop the entire game to take one step backwards to play the ball ?

 

[Geo]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

That will create a grey area for infringements within goal shot. One teams gets a penalty and takes the 2 then the other team only gets 6 to go a bit later. I dont like it if thats gonna be the rule.

Penalties are going to be extremely rare.

That's not true...for example..if the players are holding the player too long in the ruck according to the ref it will be 6 again..if a player say performs a crusher tackle which is also an infringement in the ruck or attack the head of a player it will still be a penalty.

 

[happy_tiger]

This is not meant to be a choice, it is 6 again for ruck infringements.

Not everytime though. The ref chooses, it should be the team.

No it shouldn't as it is supposed to be a deterrent that doesn't disrupt the flow of the game like a penalty does. The ref just has an option for a harsher penalty if the message isn't getting through to the players, just like he has always had in any number of situations in the game.

That will create a grey area for infringements within goal shot. One teams gets a penalty and takes the 2 then the other team only gets 6 to go a bit later. I dont like it if thats gonna be the rule.

Penalties are going to be extremely rare.

That's not true...for example..if the players are holding the player too long in the ruck according to the ref it will be 6 again..if a player say performs a crusher tackle which is also an infringement in the ruck or attack the head of a player it will still be a penalty.

Yep and you reckon these blokes will remember everything seeing it is all untried

Far easier for refs to blow penalties