Question to the Aussies Here

[typicalfan]

f**k me dead! Are you saying Klein has been anything short of appalling?! And Archer?

The ARL have built up this notion that no one other than a select few men in the world can ref Australian international matches and some people believe it.

Alibert or Williamson would be every bit as good as Klein and Archer but the Aussie officials and media would simply bag them and everyone on here would follow suit.

Again, I point to the empirical proof that Klein is a sh*tHOUSE ref and has a sh*tHOUSE world cup, yet the ARL are getting away with stating he's been great.

It's a farce.

i didnt select the ref did I, but to think the reason is because Australia want the added advantage is ridiculously subjective and i would imagine difficult to prove.

 

[marv]

Alibert or Williamson would be every bit as good as Klein and Archer

Sometimes I think your absolutley mental Screeny.

Or your a 1st class wind up merchant ;-)

 

[screeny]

Sometimes I think your absolutley mental Screeny.

Or your a 1st class wind up merchant ;-)

neither has made the number of errors as Klein or Archer IMO. No wind up.

 

[butchmcdick]

No, that's an exaggeration. The point is, as it has always been, that Australia is too good a footy team for their not to be neutral refs.

And my particular point of view, that is very much my opinion, is that Australia has in fact had the rub of the green in its matches for whatever reason.

I think this is empirically proven and if you review their matches with an objective mind you might agree that they have benefitted from more calls than their opponents. I said might....

As for the ARL, I think they are a sham and don't run a modern international organisation, yes. The RLEF insisted on qualifiers in 2006/7, and on a domestic player quota, for the good of the game at large.

I agree the ARL is a sh*thouse organisation that couldn't organise a root in a brothel with a fist full of fifties. I guess a good thing to come out of this world cup is that the whole theory about news leaving the game and the ARL will run the game so much better has been blown out of the water.

As for reviewing the tapes with an objective mind. Even if you reviewed it with eddie and stevo's tiny brains and took out every so called lucky call Australia would still win comfortably.

 

[IAmDancingHomer]

I can understand the calls for nutral refs. It is only natural that you would like to wipe out any possibility of bias/favouratism out fo the equation. My only problem is that it will not be enough for many. You only need to look at the cricket msg boards over the past few years to see evidence of this. Inian fans calling the SA umpire racist is a classic one. Ther are also the endless calls for Bucknor to stop favouring the Aussie team eventhough he is a West Indian. There are many threads covering this point. The general concensus is that the BEST people qualified for the position should get the gig. Umpires/refs should be awarded their appointments on their merits. That said it would only be natuarl to appoint the best ref for the final of the RLWC. Now I do not know who gets to make the decisions on who is or isnt the best ref in the world but I think that regardless of where they come from they should be the man/worman for the job. That is how it shoudl happen in a perfect world anyway. Unfortunately refs are human and make error so to avoid allegations of bias, neutral refs should be appointed.

 

[VonVolks]

Homer, all refs will get abuse in every sport. Its in the nature of competition.
The Premier League in UK footy has professional refs, and a big talent pool to pick from but every week they get it in the ear.

This thread is basically saying we need to take away the most obvious stick with which people beat the sport of RL. Neutral refs are essential.

 

[Titanic]

There was a time about 30 years ago that I may risen to this but in 2008 ... lmao!

 

[VonVolks]

Titanic, are you looking for a 5th reason or something? I see you list 4 reasons to go to Queensland, but your location says China?

 

[AuckMel]

Even if you reviewed it with eddie and stevo's tiny brains and took out every so called lucky call Australia would still win comfortably.

And that is the exact reason why it is a great time to develop the neutral ref policy.

Australia are the greatest and will win regardless of who the ref is. The only people having trouble accepting this is, funnily enough, Australians.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Australia are the greatest and will win regardless of who the ref is. The only people having trouble accepting this is, funnily enough, Australians.

I believe this is what EVERY Aussie on here has been saying. Its the rest of the world who think that having a "neutral" ref will give them any more of chance to beat the Kangaroos.

 

[kuwaiti kev]

I believe this is what EVERY Aussie on here has been saying. Its the rest of the world who think that having a "neutral" ref will give them any more of chance to beat the Kangaroos.

Oooo look yet another aussie who's missed the point altogether. We are not saying a neutral ref will change the result and make Australia beatable, in fact most of us have said quite the opposite.
But it does take away any question of bias.

The Kangaroo's are far an away the best team in the world no matter who refs, so why do they insist on having to have australian referees just because they rate them higher than other nations referees?

 

[kuwaiti kev]

You would think after 11 pages there would be more than 1 or 2 intelligent replies from the ockers, but obviously i've overrated them

 

[Joker's Wild]

Oooo look yet another aussie who's missed the point altogether. We are not saying a neutral ref will change the result and make Australia beatable, in fact most of us have said quite the opposite.
But it does take away any question of bias.

The Kangaroo's are far an away the best team in the world no matter who refs, so why do they insist on having to have australian referees just because they rate them higher than other nations referees?

AuckMel said that Aussies had trouble accepting that the Kangaroos would win regardless of who was reffing, I disagreed but according to you some how missed the point. :roll:

I think we all know who's the moron here

 

[AuckMel]

AuckMel said that Aussies had trouble accepting that the Kangaroos would win regardless of who was reffing

Pretty much.

You don't need to appoint Australians to games involving Australia because 99.9% of the time they'll win anyway. For the life of me I can't understand why Australians are so anti neutral refs.

 

[deluded pom?]

I believe this is what EVERY Aussie on here has been saying. Its the rest of the world who think that having a "neutral" ref will give them any more of chance to beat the Kangaroos.

I haven't seen one post from a Pom or a Kiwi on here that suggests that England or NZ would beat Australia with a neutral ref. We ALL KNOW that the chances of us beating Australia are very slim regardless of who or where the ref comes from. What we are trying to get at is the negative peception people have of RL when they see a WC match involving Australia that is reffed by an Australian to NRL interpretations. People with only a passing interest in the tournament will see this and think what a small sport we are because we can't even get a ref from a third country to officiate. It just compounds the idea that RL is a tiny sport played in eastern Australia, northern England, France and NZ. Now WE know differently but it's about the world's view of RL .

 

[deluded pom?]

Double post

 

[screeny]

Deluded Pom. I think Eng and NZ can beat Australia with a neutral, non-bias ref. NZ did it twice in 2005.

RL is such a difficult game, and Australia has built up such a psychological stranglehold over its competitors, that when it gets ahead they crumble.

If Australia started getting behind they'd be so upset they'd lose a lot of their casually proficient effectiveness with ball in hand and the exponential effect of errors + panic + clock running would set in.

It's been proven in the recent past.

This WC has shown Australia virtually gifted early leads, gifted early dominance and points, with the result that NZ and Eng have been put to bed early.

 

[bender]

Pretty much.

You don't need to appoint Australians to games involving Australia because 99.9% of the time they'll win anyway. For the life of me I can't understand why Australians are so anti neutral refs.

It is because they confuse things with referees.

The NRL is the highest level rugby league and their refs are the best paid, but it does not mean they are the only referees in the world or country who can ref. Every ref makes mistakes. I tend to think the NRL refs as a whole struggle to ref well, because they are not able to be criticised openly, so they deliberately look to do things like make the penalty counts even, or to blow games with low penalty counts or stamp their authority by concentrating on different types of rules at different times.

If you believe most people, there are about 4 people in the entire countrywho are capable of refereeing at a decent standard, are any of those from qld? Plenty of players are capable of playing NRL, but no refs are good enough.

The funny thing is that in recent times, whenever a French referee, or a PNG Referee (remember the guy inoki or something like that) or the NZ referees ever referee in test matches they always perform at the same level or sometimes better as any other referrees. There is no such thing as a standout ref, because every game is different, and every ref will have to make calls that they will get wrong at some time. So long as they are fit enough to keep up with play, all of the refs reffing in any serious competion whether it be ESL, french league, QRL or whereever is capable of doing the job.

In the current situation where it shouldnt be all that hard to get a neutral referree. As a pure exercise, it would be very interesting to sit down and watch every world cup game and pick appart how many mistakes each referee made I dont think that Frenchie would be much worse than the Aussies or klein. In saying that though, i though Hayne probably seemed to have the best tournament.

 

[VonVolks]

The funny thing is that in recent times, whenever a French referee, or a PNG Referee (remember the guy inoki or something like that) or the NZ referees ever referee in test matches they always perform at the same level or sometimes better as any other referrees. There is no such thing as a standout ref, because every game is different, and every ref will have to make calls that they will get wrong at some time. So long as they are fit enough to keep up with play, all of the refs reffing in any serious competion whether it be ESL, french league, QRL or whereever is capable of doing the job.

In the current situation where it shouldnt be all that hard to get a neutral referree. As a pure exercise, it would be very interesting to sit down and watch every world cup game and pick appart how many mistakes each referee made I dont think that Frenchie would be much worse than the Aussies or klein. In saying that though, i though Hayne probably seemed to have the best tournament.

Pretty much spot on, and I agree that Hayne has been good too.

 

[hutch]

I haven't seen one post from a Pom or a Kiwi on here that suggests that England or NZ would beat Australia with a neutral ref. We ALL KNOW that the chances of us beating Australia are very slim regardless of who or where the ref comes from. What we are trying to get at is the negative peception people have of RL when they see a WC in Australia that is reffed by an Auatralian to NRL interpretations. People with only a passing interest in the tournament will see this and think what a small sport we are because we can't even get a ref from a third country to officiate. It just compounds the idea that RL is a tiny sport played in eastern Australia, northern England, France and NZ. Now WE know differently but it's about the world's view of RL .

great post!