One ref

[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.

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.

Yes but a crusher tackle isn't deemed an offense they can give 6 again for? I'm talking about situations where 6 again or a penalty can be ruled and your example is not one of those.

 

[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.

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.

Players are automatically binned when a penalty is given, do you really think the refs are going to be blowing penalties regularly?

 

[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.

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

Far easier for refs to blow penalties

Not really...things like crowding..leg pulls on the player getting up, lying on the tackled player too long are pretty easy to rule on...the NRL did there study in 2019 there were an ave of 5.1 penalties a game for this type of infringement..illegal tackles are also pretty clear cut..

What I'm interested in is how they rule the continual offside that teams employ inside the 20..whether or not that will be 6 again or a penalty..

 

[TheDaBoss]

Hurry up Thursday..............

 

[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

Not really...things like crowding..leg pulls on the player getting up, lying on the tackled player too long are pretty easy to rule on...the NRL did there study in 2019 there were an ave of 5.1 penalties a game for this type of infringement..illegal tackles are also pretty clear cut..

What I'm interested in is how they rule the continual offside that teams employ inside the 20..whether or not that will be 6 again or a penalty..

But who says they will clear once the 6 again is called .....the NRL should be making it clear to fans , players , clubs maybe even the refs ....

 

[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.

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

Far easier for refs to blow penalties

Not really...things like crowding..leg pulls on the player getting up, lying on the tackled player too long are pretty easy to rule on...the NRL did there study in 2019 there were an ave of 5.1 penalties a game for this type of infringement..illegal tackles are also pretty clear cut..

What I'm interested in is how they rule the continual offside that teams employ inside the 20..whether or not that will be 6 again or a penalty..

But who says they will clear once the 6 again is called .....the NRL should be making it clear to fans , players , clubs maybe even the refs ....

BOOM Chee-Kam in the sin bin..

 

[Geo]

Hurry up Thursday..............

What's happening on Thursday..?

 

[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.

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 ?

Then they decide to go for touch and the kicker oversteps the mark by 3 metres.

 

[TheDaBoss]

Hurry up Thursday..............

What's happening on Thursday..?

next Thursday

nothing happening this Thursday apart from Josh Reynolds signing with Bulldogs, and us loaning MCqueen to warriors

 

[supercoach]

With the one ref system they will have to be the fittest and close to the fastest body on the field. To be on the ball for 80 minutes, control the ruck, the offside, forward passes and discipline, with only the help of the touchies, who get it wrong more often than not when forced to make a call, is going to be a big ask. Okay they did it in the past, but the game has gone up three notches and the reason they introduced the two ref system is because they were struggling big time back than. I think it’s like lambs to the slaughter, it will physically and mentally destroy them

 

[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.

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 ?

Then they decide to go for touch and the kicker oversteps the mark by 3 metres.

Goal line drop outs , the player taking the drop out is over the line and 6 others are off side as well

 

[happy_tiger]

Hurry up Thursday..............

What's happening on Thursday..?

The refs go on strike numbskull

 

[Geo]

Hurry up Thursday..............

What's happening on Thursday..?

The refs go on strike numbskull

Why is the meeting at the fair work commission on Friday then for..?

 

[happy_tiger]

Hurry up Thursday..............

What's happening on Thursday..?

The refs go on strike numbskull

Why is the meeting at the fair work commission on Friday then for..?

So the refs commissioner can get his 15 minutes of fame

 

[JC99]

The refs have a ratifed Enterprise Bargaining Agreement with the NRL, which they say has been altered without due negotiation or consultation. They are well within their rights to have the validity of the NRL decision tested. And, good on them for doing it.

Don’t bother. People seem to forget that refs are employees with rights, people don’t give a crap about them simply because they’re refs. It’s disgusting to be honest, they’re just like all of us.

 

[innsaneink]

The refs have a ratifed Enterprise Bargaining Agreement with the NRL, which they say has been altered without due negotiation or consultation. They are well within their rights to have the validity of the NRL decision tested. And, good on them for doing it.

Don’t bother. People seem to forget that refs are employees with rights, people don’t give a crap about them simply because they’re refs. It’s disgusting to be honest, they’re just like all of us.

They aren't like us... They're like dentists, parking cops and physiotherapists

 

[mike]

The refs have a ratifed Enterprise Bargaining Agreement with the NRL, which they say has been altered without due negotiation or consultation. They are well within their rights to have the validity of the NRL decision tested. And, good on them for doing it.

Don’t bother. People seem to forget that refs are employees with rights, people don’t give a crap about them simply because they’re refs. It’s disgusting to be honest, they’re just like all of us.

An Enterprise Agreement doesn’t mean things are not allowed to change. As long as they, the refs, are appropriately compensated. A business is allowed to restructure if it feels it is in its best interest and ensures its future.

 

[mike]

The refs have a ratifed Enterprise Bargaining Agreement with the NRL, which they say has been altered without due negotiation or consultation. They are well within their rights to have the validity of the NRL decision tested. And, good on them for doing it.

Don’t bother. People seem to forget that refs are employees with rights, people don’t give a crap about them simply because they’re refs. It’s disgusting to be honest, they’re just like all of us.

An Enterprise Agreement doesn’t mean things are not allowed to change. As long as they, the refs, are appropriately compensated. A business is allowed to restructure if it feels it is in its best interest and ensures its future.

I assume you mean after appropriate consultation? Or, is that just best practice in business, but not an obligation?

It depends on the circumstances under which the changes are made and also what is in the Enterprise Agreement of which I am not privileged to.