One ref

[JD Tiger]

Here's my take.

I don't believe for a second that cutting down from two refs to one will improve the decisions made on the field by those referee/s in charge. They will still make calls just as baffling as every other year. It won't result in more time the game is in play, through less penalties and faster ruck speeds, that makes absolutely no sense - and they were not the reasons why Vlandys made this decision, just spin to try and sell his decision.

This decision is all about money, V'landys wants to cut costs, figured the refs would offer the least resistance. In the article above, V'landys is whingeing about the refs only having their own self interest at heart, refusing to take a paycut. Everyone else took a paycut he says, but not them. The refs did offer to take a paycut, but he doesn't believe them, as it's only if they remain at the two refs on field at once format.

The refs tried to improve the game and do exactly what V'landys says he wants, policing the ruck a lot more, trying to remove the wrestle, and the media smashed the refs. There was no back-up then from the NRL, no support then, and the refs caved in reverting back to what we have now.

V'landys walking out of arbitration and publicly saying he would never agree to retaining two refs showed his hand, he isn't there to negotiate, he wants his way or the highway. And frankly, he hasn't demonstrated that his way will help Rugby League at all, he's the new guy in the game, and the only test (albeit very minor) he has faced so far in dealing with tough issues is letting off the social distancing mob off lightly.

I back the refs in this one, it's about time someone did and the NRL sure hasn't..

 

[cochise]

I'm happy to use this season as an experiment , I like the changes, it's a perfect time to tinker with the game imo because let's get real the season is a write off.

I feel like the rule changes being pushed through quickly , is because of the opportunity we have to showcase the game , and like it or not the game in the last few years has become really tactical and sometimes boring . And yes , a penalty a thon.
I think it’s out of line , and opportunistic from the refs . Especially when you consider all contracts will be honoured . The Sutton’s are a mess. The KPIs they strive to hit , should never have been put in place , and in fact the only metric should be “did I notice you , or not “ . Giving autonomy to the refs is a good thing . Even if what people say is true , in that they don’t have the confidence , this should reinforce this . But it’s always been perspective to me .
Phil Gould said recently that many of the top refs have never played before . He can be a mug , but if that’s true , no wonder the disconnect between what the refs view is a good game , and everyone else .

There has always been a lot of refs who never played the game, I don't think it makes any difference to be honest.




It’s fine if you’re an Eddie ward , Tim Mander , Bill Harrigan type , who all develop distinct styles and command , and general flow of the game was important . But if it’s KPIs and Hitting targets , and you’ve never played before , so you don’t understand little nuances , how does that not lead to “rule enforcement” rather than “game mangement”. Cause there would be a penalty in every tackle if you looked hard enough.

I think the biggest problem is the refs are made to ref in a certain style instead of one that come naturally to them. People are not robots and manage people in different ways depending on their own personality.

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

Here's my take.

I don't believe for a second that cutting down from two refs to one will improve the decisions made on the field by those referee/s in charge. They will still make calls just as baffling as every other year. It won't result in more time the game is in play, through less penalties and faster ruck speeds, that makes absolutely no sense - and they were not the reasons why Vlandys made this decision, just spin to try and sell his decision.

This decision is all about money, V'landys wants to cut costs, figured the refs would offer the least resistance. In the article above, V'landys is whingeing about the refs only having their own self interest at heart, refusing to take a paycut. Everyone else took a paycut he says, but not them. The refs did offer to take a paycut, but he doesn't believe them, as it's only if they remain at the two refs on field at once format.

The refs tried to improve the game and do exactly what V'landys says he wants, policing the ruck a lot more, trying to remove the wrestle, and the media smashed the refs. There was no back-up then from the NRL, no support then, and the refs caved in reverting back to what we have now.

V'landys walking out of arbitration and publicly saying he would never agree to retaining two refs showed his hand, he isn't there to negotiate, he wants his way or the highway. And frankly, he hasn't demonstrated that his way will help Rugby League at all, he's the new guy in the game, and the only test (albeit very minor) he has faced so far in dealing with tough issues is letting off the social distancing mob off lightly.

I back the refs in this one, it's about time someone did and the NRL sure hasn't..

It's about time we had someone in charge like
V'Landys he's no one's yes man unlike others that have been in the position before .The refs get paid very good money for what they do and it's about time they started earning it there have been to many cases where people with vested interests have sabotaged our game now we have a big dog in charge and he will wag his tail and not the other way it been in the past with the tail wagging the dog go get em Peter. Racing NSW has never seen it better and in time the NRL will be in the same position

 

[mike]

I'm happy to use this season as an experiment , I like the changes, it's a perfect time to tinker with the game imo because let's get real the season is a write off.

I feel like the rule changes being pushed through quickly , is because of the opportunity we have to showcase the game , and like it or not the game in the last few years has become really tactical and sometimes boring . And yes , a penalty a thon.
I think it’s out of line , and opportunistic from the refs . Especially when you consider all contracts will be honoured . The Sutton’s are a mess. The KPIs they strive to hit , should never have been put in place , and in fact the only metric should be “did I notice you , or not “ . Giving autonomy to the refs is a good thing . Even if what people say is true , in that they don’t have the confidence , this should reinforce this . But it’s always been perspective to me .
Phil Gould said recently that many of the top refs have never played before . He can be a mug , but if that’s true , no wonder the disconnect between what the refs view is a good game , and everyone else .

There has always been a lot of refs who never played the game, I don't think it makes any difference to be honest.




It’s fine if you’re an Eddie ward , Tim Mander , Bill Harrigan type , who all develop distinct styles and command , and general flow of the game was important . But if it’s KPIs and Hitting targets , and you’ve never played before , so you don’t understand little nuances , how does that not lead to “rule enforcement” rather than “game mangement”. Cause there would be a penalty in every tackle if you looked hard enough.

I think the biggest problem is the refs are made to ref in a certain style instead of one that come naturally to them. People are not robots and manage people in different ways depending on their own personality.

The current problem is they have so many people in their earpiece constantly given them advice and telling them what to do, so they have totally lost control of the game. Under the one ref that is going to stop. The refs will be in charge and people won’t be in their earpiece unless asked.

 

[cochise]

I'm happy to use this season as an experiment , I like the changes, it's a perfect time to tinker with the game imo because let's get real the season is a write off.

I feel like the rule changes being pushed through quickly , is because of the opportunity we have to showcase the game , and like it or not the game in the last few years has become really tactical and sometimes boring . And yes , a penalty a thon.
I think it’s out of line , and opportunistic from the refs . Especially when you consider all contracts will be honoured . The Sutton’s are a mess. The KPIs they strive to hit , should never have been put in place , and in fact the only metric should be “did I notice you , or not “ . Giving autonomy to the refs is a good thing . Even if what people say is true , in that they don’t have the confidence , this should reinforce this . But it’s always been perspective to me .
Phil Gould said recently that many of the top refs have never played before . He can be a mug , but if that’s true , no wonder the disconnect between what the refs view is a good game , and everyone else .

There has always been a lot of refs who never played the game, I don't think it makes any difference to be honest.




It’s fine if you’re an Eddie ward , Tim Mander , Bill Harrigan type , who all develop distinct styles and command , and general flow of the game was important . But if it’s KPIs and Hitting targets , and you’ve never played before , so you don’t understand little nuances , how does that not lead to “rule enforcement” rather than “game mangement”. Cause there would be a penalty in every tackle if you looked hard enough.

I think the biggest problem is the refs are made to ref in a certain style instead of one that come naturally to them. People are not robots and manage people in different ways depending on their own personality.

The current problem is they have so many people in their earpiece constantly given them advice and telling them what to do, so they have totally lost control of the game. Under the one ref that is going to stop. The refs will be in charge and people won’t be in their earpiece unless asked.

And allow them to ref how they want, some refs are game managers some are more authoritarian and I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Deleted member 3518]

I'm happy to use this season as an experiment , I like the changes, it's a perfect time to tinker with the game imo because let's get real the season is a write off.

I feel like the rule changes being pushed through quickly , is because of the opportunity we have to showcase the game , and like it or not the game in the last few years has become really tactical and sometimes boring . And yes , a penalty a thon.
I think it’s out of line , and opportunistic from the refs . Especially when you consider all contracts will be honoured . The Sutton’s are a mess. The KPIs they strive to hit , should never have been put in place , and in fact the only metric should be “did I notice you , or not “ . Giving autonomy to the refs is a good thing . Even if what people say is true , in that they don’t have the confidence , this should reinforce this . But it’s always been perspective to me .
Phil Gould said recently that many of the top refs have never played before . He can be a mug , but if that’s true , no wonder the disconnect between what the refs view is a good game , and everyone else .

There has always been a lot of refs who never played the game, I don't think it makes any difference to be honest.




It’s fine if you’re an Eddie ward , Tim Mander , Bill Harrigan type , who all develop distinct styles and command , and general flow of the game was important . But if it’s KPIs and Hitting targets , and you’ve never played before , so you don’t understand little nuances , how does that not lead to “rule enforcement” rather than “game mangement”. Cause there would be a penalty in every tackle if you looked hard enough.

I think the biggest problem is the refs are made to ref in a certain style instead of one that come naturally to them. People are not robots and manage people in different ways depending on their own personality.

The current problem is they have so many people in their earpiece constantly given them advice and telling them what to do, so they have totally lost control of the game. Under the one ref that is going to stop. The refs will be in charge and people won’t be in their earpiece unless asked.

And allow them to ref how they want, some refs are game managers some are more authoritarian and I don't have a problem with that.

Yep ? remember mander running up and down the field yelling and loving it . Or Eddie ward being a knob . Or Bill harrigan not allowing any crap that got in the way of the spectacle . All distinct styles . Of which the coaches will have to game plan accordingly. The robotic , dont stuff up or miss your KPIs otherwise you’re in reserves is ridiculous . If anything it leads to bigger more blatant howlers

 

[JD Tiger]

Here's my take.

I don't believe for a second that cutting down from two refs to one will improve the decisions made on the field by those referee/s in charge. They will still make calls just as baffling as every other year. It won't result in more time the game is in play, through less penalties and faster ruck speeds, that makes absolutely no sense - and they were not the reasons why Vlandys made this decision, just spin to try and sell his decision.

This decision is all about money, V'landys wants to cut costs, figured the refs would offer the least resistance. In the article above, V'landys is whingeing about the refs only having their own self interest at heart, refusing to take a paycut. Everyone else took a paycut he says, but not them. The refs did offer to take a paycut, but he doesn't believe them, as it's only if they remain at the two refs on field at once format.

The refs tried to improve the game and do exactly what V'landys says he wants, policing the ruck a lot more, trying to remove the wrestle, and the media smashed the refs. There was no back-up then from the NRL, no support then, and the refs caved in reverting back to what we have now.

V'landys walking out of arbitration and publicly saying he would never agree to retaining two refs showed his hand, he isn't there to negotiate, he wants his way or the highway. And frankly, he hasn't demonstrated that his way will help Rugby League at all, he's the new guy in the game, and the only test (albeit very minor) he has faced so far in dealing with tough issues is letting off the social distancing mob off lightly.

I back the refs in this one, it's about time someone did and the NRL sure hasn't..

It's about time we had someone in charge like
V'Landys he's no one's yes man unlike others that have been in the position before .The refs get paid very good money for what they do and it's about time they started earning it there have been to many cases where people with vested interests have sabotaged our game now we have a big dog in charge and he will wag his tail and not the other way it been in the past with the tail wagging the dog go get em Peter. Racing NSW has never seen it better and in time the NRL will be in the same position

I hope it does go like that. If he can stand up and lead this game instead of the Fox-sycophants we've had in recent times, all the more power to him. I'm not sure yet which camp he is in.

 

[JC99]

Here's my take.

I don't believe for a second that cutting down from two refs to one will improve the decisions made on the field by those referee/s in charge. They will still make calls just as baffling as every other year. It won't result in more time the game is in play, through less penalties and faster ruck speeds, that makes absolutely no sense - and they were not the reasons why Vlandys made this decision, just spin to try and sell his decision.

This decision is all about money, V'landys wants to cut costs, figured the refs would offer the least resistance. In the article above, V'landys is whingeing about the refs only having their own self interest at heart, refusing to take a paycut. Everyone else took a paycut he says, but not them. The refs did offer to take a paycut, but he doesn't believe them, as it's only if they remain at the two refs on field at once format.

The refs tried to improve the game and do exactly what V'landys says he wants, policing the ruck a lot more, trying to remove the wrestle, and the media smashed the refs. There was no back-up then from the NRL, no support then, and the refs caved in reverting back to what we have now.

V'landys walking out of arbitration and publicly saying he would never agree to retaining two refs showed his hand, he isn't there to negotiate, he wants his way or the highway. And frankly, he hasn't demonstrated that his way will help Rugby League at all, he's the new guy in the game, and the only test (albeit very minor) he has faced so far in dealing with tough issues is letting off the social distancing mob off lightly.

I back the refs in this one, it's about time someone did and the NRL sure hasn't..

You’re absolutely spot on mate.

 

[JC99]

Here's my take.

I don't believe for a second that cutting down from two refs to one will improve the decisions made on the field by those referee/s in charge. They will still make calls just as baffling as every other year. It won't result in more time the game is in play, through less penalties and faster ruck speeds, that makes absolutely no sense - and they were not the reasons why Vlandys made this decision, just spin to try and sell his decision.

This decision is all about money, V'landys wants to cut costs, figured the refs would offer the least resistance. In the article above, V'landys is whingeing about the refs only having their own self interest at heart, refusing to take a paycut. Everyone else took a paycut he says, but not them. The refs did offer to take a paycut, but he doesn't believe them, as it's only if they remain at the two refs on field at once format.

The refs tried to improve the game and do exactly what V'landys says he wants, policing the ruck a lot more, trying to remove the wrestle, and the media smashed the refs. There was no back-up then from the NRL, no support then, and the refs caved in reverting back to what we have now.

V'landys walking out of arbitration and publicly saying he would never agree to retaining two refs showed his hand, he isn't there to negotiate, he wants his way or the highway. And frankly, he hasn't demonstrated that his way will help Rugby League at all, he's the new guy in the game, and the only test (albeit very minor) he has faced so far in dealing with tough issues is letting off the social distancing mob off lightly.

I back the refs in this one, it's about time someone did and the NRL sure hasn't..

It's about time we had someone in charge like
V'Landys he's no one's yes man unlike others that have been in the position before .The refs get paid very good money for what they do and it's about time they started earning it there have been to many cases where people with vested interests have sabotaged our game now we have a big dog in charge and he will wag his tail and not the other way it been in the past with the tail wagging the dog go get em Peter. Racing NSW has never seen it better and in time the NRL will be in the same position

I hope it does go like that. If he can stand up and lead this game instead of the Fox-sycophants we've had in recent times, all the more power to him. I'm not sure yet which camp he is in.

This new broadcast deal certainly seems to favour the broadcasters a lot more than the NRL

 

[Tiger_Steve]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

 

[Cairnstigers]

If the defending team is deliberately slowing up the ruck, then maybe the culprit should be charged by the match review committee. If you were to get a 20 point charge per infringement then 5 infringements would automatically result in a one match ban or a $20,000 fine to the club
This could be kept completely seperate to all other charges so points are not added
That will stop players deliberately slowing up the game

 

[JC99]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

To be honest I don’t feel like the reffing has got worse. I think people just look back at older footy with nostalgia and think it was better. I’ve watched plenty of old games and the only reason the game flowed better was because absolutely nothing was penalised and knock ons in the play the balls didn’t count either ?

Think it’s more to do with the rule book. There’s a heap more rules due to player safety etc and a lot of those rules are in a bit grey area which leads to inconsistency

 

[Tiger_Steve]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

To be honest I don’t feel like the reffing has got worse. I think people just look back at older footy with nostalgia and think it was better. I’ve watched plenty of old games and the only reason the game flowed better was because absolutely nothing was penalised and knock ons in the play the balls didn’t count either ?

Think it’s more to do with the rule book. There’s a heap more rules due to player safety etc and a lot of those rules are in a bit grey area which leads to inconsistency

I agree with your rule book point. And the pressure due to replays etc is unfair. But their lack of authority and inability to take control is very poor. Look at the way refs used to control games - that’s not nostalgic, it’s evidence! They were much stronger. But I agree, they had less pressure on them

 

[Cairnstigers]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

It's probably caused by there being to much money in the game and to much on the line for all involved
In Betting - wrong calls can change results
Wrong calls can cost you a spot in the 8
Wrong calls can cost you a premiership
Wrong calls can cost a coach his job for not making the 8
Clubs spend $millions each year to play finals footy and one bad call can stuff your whole season
To often have we seen refs change the result of a game because of a bad or wrong call
The standard of refereeing has diminished as the pressure on the referees has increased

These refs don't want to make a mistake, but the enormous pressure they feel plays on thier minds which in turn effects there ability to referee to a high standard
Now I'm no psychologist, but being placed in a position were you are constantly required to make a quick decision and are expected to get it right, can not be easy when you know you have hundreds of thousands of people watching and $millions involved.
Refs are by the way only human
We all make mistakes
It just seems to matter more in sports because we are so passionate about it.
The only way I can see some pressure release on these refs is to have a more even playing field as far as teams go
Every team needs to be able to have a realistic shot at the title
Having a top 4 favorite before a ball is kicked is not good for the game as a whole

 

[cochise]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

To be honest I don’t feel like the reffing has got worse. I think people just look back at older footy with nostalgia and think it was better. I’ve watched plenty of old games and the only reason the game flowed better was because absolutely nothing was penalised and knock ons in the play the balls didn’t count either ?

Think it’s more to do with the rule book. There’s a heap more rules due to player safety etc and a lot of those rules are in a bit grey area which leads to inconsistency

I agree with your rule book point. And the pressure due to replays etc is unfair. But their lack of authority and inability to take control is very poor. Look at the way refs used to control games - that’s not nostalgic, it’s evidence! They were much stronger. But I agree, they had less pressure on them

They also weren't expected to all act in the same way though. You have worked in Education, could you imagine trying to have all teachers run their classroom with the uniformity that is expected of refs? Completely take away their individuality and differences in how they interact with people and have them work as robots, would teachers cope with that?

 

[Tiger_Steve]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

It's probably caused by there being to much money in the game and to much on the line for all involved
In Betting - wrong calls can change results
Wrong calls can cost you a spot in the 8
Wrong calls can cost you a premiership
Wrong calls can cost a coach his job for not making the 8
Clubs spend $millions each year to play finals footy and one bad call can stuff your whole season
To often have we seen refs change the result of a game because of a bad or wrong call
The standard of refereeing has diminished as the pressure on the referees has increased

These refs don't want to make a mistake, but the enormous pressure they feel plays on thier minds which in turn effects there ability to referee to a high standard
Now I'm no psychologist, but being placed in a position were you are constantly required to make a quick decision and are expected to get it right, can not be easy when you know you have hundreds of thousands of people watching and $millions involved.
Refs are by the way only human
We all make mistakes
It just seems to matter more in sports because we are so passionate about it.
The only way I can see some pressure release on these refs is to have a more even playing field as far as teams go
Every team needs to be able to have a realistic shot at the title
Having a top 4 favorite before a ball is kicked is not good for the game as a whole

Great post CT

 

[Tiger_Steve]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

To be honest I don’t feel like the reffing has got worse. I think people just look back at older footy with nostalgia and think it was better. I’ve watched plenty of old games and the only reason the game flowed better was because absolutely nothing was penalised and knock ons in the play the balls didn’t count either ?

Think it’s more to do with the rule book. There’s a heap more rules due to player safety etc and a lot of those rules are in a bit grey area which leads to inconsistency

I agree with your rule book point. And the pressure due to replays etc is unfair. But their lack of authority and inability to take control is very poor. Look at the way refs used to control games - that’s not nostalgic, it’s evidence! They were much stronger. But I agree, they had less pressure on them


They also weren't expected to all act in the same way though. You have worked in Education, could you imagine trying to have all teachers run their classroom with the uniformity that is expected of refs? Completely take away their individuality and differences in how they interact with people and have them work as robots, would teachers cope with that?

Yeah I was going to mention (but I try to keep my posts shortish). The cookie cutter approach - looking for absolute consistency in approach has not helped

 

[happy_tiger]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

No bosses to back them either ....

 

[cochise]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

To be honest I don’t feel like the reffing has got worse. I think people just look back at older footy with nostalgia and think it was better. I’ve watched plenty of old games and the only reason the game flowed better was because absolutely nothing was penalised and knock ons in the play the balls didn’t count either ?

Think it’s more to do with the rule book. There’s a heap more rules due to player safety etc and a lot of those rules are in a bit grey area which leads to inconsistency

I agree with your rule book point. And the pressure due to replays etc is unfair. But their lack of authority and inability to take control is very poor. Look at the way refs used to control games - that’s not nostalgic, it’s evidence! They were much stronger. But I agree, they had less pressure on them


They also weren't expected to all act in the same way though. You have worked in Education, could you imagine trying to have all teachers run their classroom with the uniformity that is expected of refs? Completely take away their individuality and differences in how they interact with people and have them work as robots, would teachers cope with that?

Yeah I was going to mention (but I try to keep my posts shortish). The cookie cutter approach - looking for absolute consistency in approach has not helped

I really think Harrigan started the problem with trying to make very ref to be copies of himself,.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

The game can't live without refs and they put up with a lot of crap

And they cause a lot of crap. They are largely incompetent. I don’t know why but for the last 10 years, including the current batch, the standard has deteriorated to abysmal. No confidence, no authority, no feel.

To be honest I don’t feel like the reffing has got worse. I think people just look back at older footy with nostalgia and think it was better. I’ve watched plenty of old games and the only reason the game flowed better was because absolutely nothing was penalised and knock ons in the play the balls didn’t count either ?

Think it’s more to do with the rule book. There’s a heap more rules due to player safety etc and a lot of those rules are in a bit grey area which leads to inconsistency

I agree with your rule book point. And the pressure due to replays etc is unfair. But their lack of authority and inability to take control is very poor. Look at the way refs used to control games - that’s not nostalgic, it’s evidence! They were much stronger. But I agree, they had less pressure on them


They also weren't expected to all act in the same way though. You have worked in Education, could you imagine trying to have all teachers run their classroom with the uniformity that is expected of refs? Completely take away their individuality and differences in how they interact with people and have them work as robots, would teachers cope with that?

Yeah I was going to mention (but I try to keep my posts shortish). The cookie cutter approach - looking for absolute consistency in approach has not helped

I really think Harrigan started the problem with trying to make very ref to be copies of himself,.

I don’t really remember that. I reckon there’s two things: managing a game with mateship - bad move. Having too much dependence on video means they have lost the ability to make quick decisions under pressure. Therefore when they do - they get it wrong more often