Question to the Aussies Here

[VonVolks]

Now a question for you.

Do you think there should be neutral refs in every game even if they are not up to international standard ? How would that improve the game internationally ? Do you feel a neutral ref would have made any difference to the outcome of any match so far ? Perhaps you would like eddie and stevo to ref the semi ?

Of course not, but that's a weak excuse as there ARE refs who are neutral and up to standard, like the French ref and the New Zealand ref, and that's just in THIS WC. By 2013, there could be a lot more.

As for a difference in an outcome no man alive can call that as each game is different, and if you change the ref you have a different game, so that's just pure speculation & a waste of time.

As for Parra answering the "Q1, Q2" format, I thank you, but so far you are the only Aussie to do it, and I've just had loads of abuse and yet more England bagging. Butch is somehow obsessed with conspiracy theories but the fact is Australia is reffed by Aussies, no matter why or whatfor. If Brazil won all their World Cups in finals reffed by Brazilians, people might still admire their football but there would be a lot of coughing in the wings from all over the rest of the world....

 

[Loudstrat]

So it's all to do with their nationality, and nothing to do with their decisions?

So if a Venezuelan ref was in charge, and made the same decisions, it would be OK?

To call the Inglis pass to Slater forward - you'd have to have diagonal lines on the field!

 

[ozbash]

there ARE refs who are neutral and up to standard, like the French ref and the New Zealand ref, and that's just in THIS WC. By 2013, there could be a lot more.

certainly hope so but while the game is being run from Sydney, I seriously doubt it.

It would mean an even chance for everyone.

 

[colly]

i believe neutral refs are the go, history of the finals (look up wiki) even have the name of the world cup referees in finals starting from 1954?, so it goes that a neutral ref is needed, it adds to the intriuge

 

[VonVolks]

So it's all to do with their nationality, and nothing to do with their decisions?

So if a Venezuelan ref was in charge, and made the same decisions, it would be OK?

Well duh. YES. Because it takes the whole "it was because he's an Aussie & biased" argument out of the equation. The whole point is focus on the game, and keep its appearance as fair and balanced, rather than have this constant issue of refs.

 

[Parra]

don't worry about the rugby. Never happened.

Well it did in the real world, just not in the head-in-the-sand world that some people choose to inhabit.

 

[Loudstrat]

Well duh. YES. Because it takes the whole "it was because he's an Aussie & biased" argument out of the equation. The whole point is focus on the game, and keep its appearance as fair and balanced, rather than have this constant issue of refs.

So you are saying that there is no bias in those decisions, but you don't like him because he is biased?

 

[typicalfan]

Well duh. YES. Because it takes the whole "it was because he's an Aussie & biased" argument out of the equation. The whole point is focus on the game, and keep its appearance as fair and balanced, rather than have this constant issue of refs.

but you are the one with the issue in the first place. :crazy:

 

[VonVolks]

I'm saying why MAKE an issue of neutrality when it can be avoided.

A bad ref performance can be just a bad ref performance, but if the ref in that match is an Aussie (for an Aussie game) then a bad ref performance becomes seen as a BIASED ref performance. Something the game needs to lose to give every one confidence that games are played on an even footing.

And that's not even taking into account that if Aussie refs play a game that Aussie players are familiar with but northern hemisphere teams aren't, then that's a "non-bias" advantage that Aussie have that they shouldn't.

If England were best and won every year, I still wouldn't want an English ref for our games.

 

[VonVolks]

well well Butch. An Aussie is appointed to ref the final. Quelle surprise.

 

[butchmcdick]

And the proof that the australian team or management refused to play under anyone other than an australian is where now ?

A case could also be made that seeing as he refs in the northern hemisphere he is more familiar with the super league interpretations than the NRL's.

 

[VonVolks]

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

He's a SL ref. Why would "the Aussies" - whoever they are supposed to be - want a SL ref? If they are dictating these things why wouldn't they get an NRL ref? This big conspiracy doesn't add up.

 

[Charlie124]

Ashley Klein was born in Australia therefor is going to rig the final in Australias favour (and thank god too, otherwise we could never beat the Kiwis).

And to think, all those years the QLD born Peter Sterling was a mole we planted in the NSW camp, bringing them down from the inside. I've had my suspicions about the NSW born Greg Inglis since he made the QLD team (notice that we haven't won a game with him in the side??? coincidence? you decide!).

 

[bobbis]

International refs should be neutral, it wouldn't be difficult to arrange. Frankly its amateurish not to have neutral refs.

Saying that it made no difference to England's piss poor showing. England were terrible and have themselves to blame when you lose by 50 ref bias just doesn't matter.

 

[Charlie124]

International refs should be neutral, it wouldn't be difficult to arrange. Frankly its amateurish not to have neutral refs.

Saying that it made no difference to England's piss poor showing. England were terrible and have themselves to blame when you lose by 50 ref bias just doesn't matter.

Appointing a ref who isn't good enough for the job (french guy, Ganson etc) just because one team thinks the best ref for the job is bias - is amateurish.

What happens when the best 10 referees in the world are either Australian or Poms?? (seeing as the NRL and SL are the main comps, it only makes sense that the best referees would come from those comps) Do we get the 11th in line to ref their test matches?

 

[bobbis]

Appointing a ref who isn't good enough for the job (french guy, Ganson etc) just because one team thinks the best ref for the job is bias - is amateurish.

What happens when the best 10 referees in the world are either Australian or Poms?? (seeing as the NRL and SL are the main comps, it only makes sense that the best referees would come from those comps) Do we get the 11th in line to ref their test matches?

Seeing as you have a French and NZ team playing in those 2 comps I don't think its too much to develop a ref from each of those countries. If no French or NZ ref is good enough then clearly the RLIF, NRL and ESL are doing a piss poor job developing referees. The solution is to develop non English and Australian refs. So yes if theres no neutral refs of sufficient quality its due to amateurish administration.

 

[Parra]

Development of non-Australian teams should be the first priority.

Refs etc can follow.

 

[VonVolks]

They go hand in hand.

There is no reason why French refs and NZ refs, and for that matter PI refs or Russians, if they are deemed good, cannot do sabbaticals in NRL or SL as touchies or as refs. Help them along and make RL better.

Saying NRL is best so all internationals (err well the ones with Australia in, anyway) should be reffed by them is a joke.

Imagine UK saying "the Premier League is best, and therefore the England football team only want English refs for our European Cup or World Cup games."

We would be laughed out of the competition. Only the strength of the ARL / Aussie basis of the RLIF allows it to happen in RL.

 

[emil1989]

Personally I am comfortable with the notion of the best referee handling the match as opposed to a neutral. League is not at the standard across more than 2 comps (NRL&UKSuperL) so persisting with neutral refs is futile.

However, I think the issue is with how the game is played and reffed these days in the nrl. There is an emphasis on the ruck battle and the refs support that through their interpretations.

Some of the games in this world cup have been a breath of fresh air and played the way leaugue should be played. But when Australia play with Archer or Hayne in tow, the result is a foregone conclusion wrestling feast with a sprinkle of league in between.

Whilst the World Cup is continued to be reffed like the NRL, all other teams have little chance to get near Australia. Clearly that's a negative.

spot on..the aussie refs have different refereeing styles from the rest as they are used to wrestling etc..whilst the english refs r used to free flowing games..thats y neutral refs shuld b picked so one team shouldnt have a game plan that will definitely be successful because of refereeing styles...eg. australia will go into a game knowing they can wrestle if they have an aussie ref, whilst theyll have to change a few things if they get an english ref cos theyll get penalised..australia is the best team in the world..but i think not having neutral refs gives a slight advantage to the team that are used to that refereeing style

i think this little theory can be supported by the world club challenge and how much we struggle against their teams because we arent used to the way they play with their referees interpretations of the rules


i do think australia would've won the matches they did..but maybe not by as much..because they wrestle the other team out of the game by the 20th minute and then pile on 50 points

p.s im an aussie fan giving you a pretty serious opinion..hope you understand..and im glad theres a neutral ref for the final