2 refs. If the RFL don't bring them in

[southwalesrabbitoh]

next year, the Kiwis and Kangaroos should refuse to play against the Lions.

 

[WireMan]

If NRL need two refs, we should refuse to allow just one of them to referee a game. Obviously not up to it.

 

[Evil Homer]

Get a grip, why should we copy everything the NRL does?

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

You know exectly what I mean, and why 2, preferably 4 refs are needed.

Didn't you see the debacle at Leeds last Sunday ?

I will never watch a dalball/RL match again that hasn't got at least 2 refs.

 

[deluded pom?]

Then you won't be watching the 4N then.

 

[deluded pom?]

next year, the Kiwis and Kangaroos should refuse to play against the Lions.

Grow up mate. Do they have two refs in the New Zealand domestic comp? If not then only one team outside of Australia plays under two refs. Maybe the rest of the world should refuse to play Australia until they fall in line. :roll:

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

I feel sorry for you, as League is not all that big in England, therefore doesn't seem to be able to afford two refs.

But the two best teams are the Kangaroos and Kiwis, and the vast majority of the Kiwi team play in the NRL, obviously under two refs.

Sport is elitist, and the sport is better with at least 2 refs, so where there can be two refs on the field, 2 refs should be there, whether players have played with 2 refs or not.

My answer would be to go to the NRL.

 

[Jankuloski]

Is it better with two refs? Yes.

Should the Roos not play internationals if there's only one ref? Hell no.

 

[deluded pom?]

Sport is elitist, and the sport is better with at least 2 refs

Why not go the whole hog and have 26 refs. One for each player. :roll:

 

[WireMan]

I feel sorry for you, as League is not all that big in England, therefore doesn't seem to be able to afford two refs.

But the two best teams are the Kangaroos and Kiwis, and the vast majority of the Kiwi team play in the NRL, obviously under two refs.

Sport is elitist, and the sport is better with at least 2 refs, so where there can be two refs on the field, 2 refs should be there, whether players have played with 2 refs or not.

My answer would be to go to the NRL.

You need two refs cause they ain't good enough. Therefore until NRL refs can prove they can cope on there own they should be barred from international comps.

Simples.

 

[clarency]

I have no problem with 2 referees.

What I have a problem with is one competition using 2 referees while the rest of the world uses 1. Hence why we need a proper RLIF that can make rules and general outlay of the game universal. It should be either one or the other, not both.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

You need two refs cause they ain't good enough. Therefore until NRL refs can prove they can cope on there own they should be barred from international comps.

Simples.

Perhaps when Super League teams grasp and master the concept of wrestling in the tackle, then you would see why 2 refs are needed. Melbourne were up to their old tricks in the WCC because of the single ref.

Our refs arent good enough???? NO REF is good enough!

 

[Johnny_L_O]

Funilly enough I have just watched a game in th ESL tonight (2 actually) and the speed of play was back to normal. In the Leeds-Quins game The PTB's were back to about 2 seconds and they wernt too dissimilar in the Bulls-Wigan game. God knows what happened last week because Silverwood definately didnt ref the game how he's reffed the season so far. Anybody who watched the Wigan - Warrington game the week before will see that.

If anything needs to be changed its being able to change rules in 1 country without the other accepting it. Play NRL and SL under the same rules and also the International game. That way its not open to interpretation and everyone knows what the hell is going on.

 

[Jankuloski]

I can't tell for all events, but in some crucial instances I distinctly heard him say "SURRENDER" and that is why he gave them more time in the tackle. I heard it quite often.

Anyway, that game didn't have a problem with the ref, the problem was that Slater was banned from running with the ball by Bellamy, and Inglis got three balls total.

 

[nadera78]

The NRL brought in the two refs system because teams like Melbourne were being so negative at the play the ball with their ridiculous wrestling bullsh*t. It was the only way to counter it. Teams in ESL use wrestling, of course they do, but no-one does it anywhere near that much. And tbh if any of them did do that then people wouldn't watch it. We don't need two refs because the game doesn't require it.

The question needs to be asked of Silverwood as to why he went off in such a strange direction. Even on tackles where he didn't call 'surrender' he still gave twice as much time than he normally does. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[bartman]

With two refs on the field make just as many howlers as when there was one. Even with four blokes on the field they all still miss forward passes - perhaps even more than before?

It's just a way to create a career path for more whistlebowers, who can then graduate onto the video box.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

It's not just the about the ruck that the sport requires 2 refs, it's also regarding the defensive line, the defensive line was more disciplined in the NRL last year, I've seen some matches in England where some of the players only go back 8 metres.

It's impossible for one ref to officiate the ruck and the defensive line at the same time. This is why 4 refs would be ideal.

 

[deluded pom?]

So if the RFL bring in a rule that isn't used in the NRL then should the RFL refuse to play against Australia?

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

You obviously want 2 refs in SL from what your saying.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Watching a game of SL now (Bradford v Wigan, no enthusiasm at all from either side), and there is no need for a second ref, the game is significantly slower then the NRL that 1 ref can keep up. Only problem with SL refs is a similar problem that NRL refs have, unacceptably low quality.