Referees Making Up the Rules on the Spot Thread

[Tiger5150]

I think you might be closer to the money then you think with that one. Greenburg has made his entire life out of just exploiting his personal connections and winging it. Who looked at the state of the Bulldogs before he was appointed to the NRL and thought "yeah this guy knows what he's doing lets make him the boss."? And if it's a case of simply not having anyone better, than we're further up shit creek than even I thought.

Nah mate I know exactly how close to the money I am. Google his professional experience prior to Bulldogs, its nothing and bugger all since. He has made a living of looking into a camera with a tough expression and spouting platitudes with absolutely ZERO to back it up. I said it when he got the gig and it has been borne out. He makes it up as he goes along. He is out of his depth. His nickname should be Donnie Greenberg.

 

[ram raid]

I think it's just something we are going to have to get used to;. dare I say, embrace. So many of the rules don't yield unequivocal applications. If the referees have different personalities, it is to be expected that they will bring their subjective interpretations and style. Think back to school; You had one teacher who would send you to detention for talking too much. While another would tolerate you blowing spit balls or exposing your genitals. You didn't expect consistency because you understood that the temperaments in charge were different.. We could assuage a lot of the stupefaction over inconsistency if we allowed for refereeing styles being variable. It would also add fun and theater. Bill Harrigan was the best referee because he used intuition when the rule book was inadequate.

 

[Tiger5150]

I think it's just something we are going to have to get used to;. dare I say, embrace. So many of the rules don't yield unequivocal applications. If the referees have different personalities, it is to be expected that they will bring their subjective interpretations and style. Think back to school; You had one teacher who would send you to detention for talking too much. While another would tolerate you blowing spit balls or exposing your genitals. You didn't expect consistency because you understood that the temperaments in charge were different.. We could assuage a lot of the stupefaction over inconsistency if we allowed for refereeing styles being variable. It would also add fun and theater. Bill Harrigan was the best referee because he used intuition when the rule book was inadequate.

Im not so sure.

Ive been a Balmain or Wests Tigers fan all my life so have never followed one of the "Successful" or "glamour" clubs. My personal opinion is that biggest problem in the NRL right now is that there is one rule of the big guys and another rule for the rest. Ive never really felt that prior to about 5 or 6 years ago. Once you have it in your head its probably just a matter of perception bias but Ive noticed it as a common complaint.

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, I consistently apply Occam's Razor but whilst you continually have inconsistent refereeing (almost unfailingly benefiting the big guys), inconsistent MRC and bullshit like Cam Smith getting a testimonial and his Mrs getting a $15K ring whilst other clubs cop Salary Cap shaftings, it firmly reinforces this.

 

[unforgiven]

I think it's just something we are going to have to get used to;. dare I say, embrace. So many of the rules don't yield unequivocal applications. If the referees have different personalities, it is to be expected that they will bring their subjective interpretations and style. Think back to school; You had one teacher who would send you to detention for talking too much. While another would tolerate you blowing spit balls or exposing your genitals. You didn't expect consistency because you understood that the temperaments in charge were different.. We could assuage a lot of the stupefaction over inconsistency if we allowed for refereeing styles being variable. It would also add fun and theater. Bill Harrigan was the best referee because he used intuition when the rule book was inadequate.

I agree with this 100%, referees have different personalties and these personalties should allow them to ref in different ways but still produce a fair and consistent game.

For example if Ref A's personality means he refs a better game by being harder on the players and blowing more penalties compared to Ref B who talks to players and managers them through the game, why does it matter? Players will learn each refs style and change their behaviour and gameplay to suit the ref. I am over all games looking the same anyway and a little variety in the refs isn't going to make much difference!

 

[unforgiven]

Im not so sure.

Ive been a Balmain or Wests Tigers fan all my life so have never followed one of the "Successful" or "glamour" clubs. My personal opinion is that biggest problem in the NRL right now is that there is one rule of the big guys and another rule for the rest. Ive never really felt that prior to about 5 or 6 years ago. Once you have it in your head its probably just a matter of perception bias but Ive noticed it as a common complaint.

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, I consistently apply Occam's Razor but whilst you continually have inconsistent refereeing (almost unfailingly benefiting the big guys), inconsistent MRC and bullshit like Cam Smith getting a testimonial and his Mrs getting a $15K ring whilst other clubs cop Salary Cap shaftings, it firmly reinforces this.

Don't agree at all, our refs used to ref with vastly different styles and I didn't hear anyway say teams were blatantly and systematically favoured over other teams. It has only been since we searched for consistency across refs that these beliefs arose!

 

[Quicksilver]

I think it's just something we are going to have to get used to;. dare I say, embrace. So many of the rules don't yield unequivocal applications. If the referees have different personalities, it is to be expected that they will bring their subjective interpretations and style. Think back to school; You had one teacher who would send you to detention for talking too much. While another would tolerate you blowing spit balls or exposing your genitals. You didn't expect consistency because you understood that the temperaments in charge were different.. We could assuage a lot of the stupefaction over inconsistency if we allowed for refereeing styles being variable. It would also add fun and theater. Bill Harrigan was the best referee because he used intuition when the rule book was inadequate.

That’s fair enough for the onfield calls. But there seems to be wildly different interpretations in the bunker from try to try too.

 

[ram raid]

That’s fair enough for the onfield calls. But there seems to be wildly different interpretations in the bunker from try to try too.

Yeah that's a different matter. I really don't know how the bunker are f**king so much stuff up. A lot of it seems to me to be plain incompetence. If that's so, they just have to get better.

 

[ram raid]

Im not so sure.

Ive been a Balmain or Wests Tigers fan all my life so have never followed one of the "Successful" or "glamour" clubs. My personal opinion is that biggest problem in the NRL right now is that there is one rule of the big guys and another rule for the rest. Ive never really felt that prior to about 5 or 6 years ago. Once you have it in your head its probably just a matter of perception bias but Ive noticed it as a common complaint.

I am NOT a conspiracy guy, I consistently apply Occam's Razor but whilst you continually have inconsistent refereeing (almost unfailingly benefiting the big guys), inconsistent MRC and bullshit like Cam Smith getting a testimonial and his Mrs getting a $15K ring whilst other clubs cop Salary Cap shaftings, it firmly reinforces this.

I honestly don't see bad refereeing benefiting or penalizing any particular side, except perhaps the storm being allowed to push the boundaries with their wrestling tactics. Some sides get lucky or unlucky, sure. I remember those years when the Cowboys were f**ked out of the finals two years in a row. It was unlucky but I don't think it was agenda-driven. If there were agendas about the Storm would not be allowed to wrestle like they do. Having a Victorian team in the finals every year is not beneficial to the NRL monetarily. There's a lot of complicated factors at play; mostly stemming from the refs not doing a great job in general. If you feel like your team is getting rorted all the time it can be due to confirmation bias.

I find the the ideas that there is a conspiracy to help certain teams ridiculous, TBH,

 

[AJB1102]

Was Kasey Badger.

And on her podcast she admitted she f**ked it up

She has a podcast?

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Huh? They marched him at least another 2-3ms after being called held.

The obstruction examples you’re using are ridiculous. The one that was a penalty made a 40m break. The one that wasn’t got tackled immediately. Do you not understand the term ‘advantage’

Bring back continuous live rucks then, if you get held up in-goal it's a tap on the 20m line for the defending side.

 

[Vee]

Good thread. As someone who often defends refs, this sort of shit really taxes me

I'd get rid of the hearing interpretation, put the onus back on the players. For all but the biggest games, the players are taking the piss claiming they can't hear.

 

[gerg]

Bring back continuous live rucks then, if you get held up in-goal it's a tap on the 20m line for the defending side.

I appreciate you are a troll but the NRL should do everything in their power (& thankfully they do) to not follow or copy anything that that abomination of a sport has or does.

But multiball certainly has it's merits.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

I appreciate you are a troll but the NRL should do everything in their power (& thankfully they do) to not follow or copy anything that that abomination of a sport has or does.

But multiball certainly has it's merits.

I'm not a troll, just saying we should trial it. And of course RU is far from perfect.

 

[snickers007]

I can't remember the exact game, but it was a Panthers game this season.
RCG took a hit up close to the try line, was held by the defence in the field of play. All his weight was held by the defenders.

When they released him, he fell over the line, and grounded the ball. He got straight to his feet and played the ball.

The referee went to the bunker, and Colonel Sanders penalised for a double movement.

The double movement rule specifies that the player must "make a second movement to ground the ball", which he clearly did not do. He was released and fell, and didn't look to claim a try.

Baffling

 

[gerg]

I'm not a troll, just saying we should trial it. And of course RU is far from perfect.

No... We shouldn't. It's a shit idea.

 

[Zadar]

In the roosters raiders match, when looking at the penalty infringements, two penalties were referred to as “other”?

Usually there is a description for the offence,

 

[no name]

Is the benefit of going back and playing the ball if you play on simultaneously to the call of held only afforded to the attacking team?
Hodgson went for a one on one rake last night as the ref called held, he was penalised.
If the attacking player passes the ball as the ref calls held, they are brought back to play it.

I think it should probably stay as a penalty, but I wonder if there is anything actually written in the rule book around this?

 

[thorson1987]

She has a podcast?

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/08/21/nrl-podcast-refs-round-up/

It's a really good listen.

 

[Slackboy72]

I remember one from 5 years or so ago where a young Jamal-Idris-type tyro complete with dreadlocks came on for the Tigers.
He really tried to rip in with varying degrees of success.
One tackle degenerating into him trying to manhandle another forward and even though it looked bad he didn't break any rule. The referee though promptly penalised him for using excessive force or something like that. can anyone recall this? May have been a monday night game at cambelltown.

 

[Incorrect]

I remember one from 5 years or so ago where a young Jamal-Idris-type tyro complete with dreadlocks came on for the Tigers.
He really tried to rip in with varying degrees of success.
One tackle degenerating into him trying to manhandle another forward and even though it looked bad he didn't break any rule. The referee though promptly penalised him for using excessive force or something like that. can anyone recall this? May have been a monday night game at cambelltown.

Daine Laurie?? Was probably penalised for being a psychopath.... Had some issues that fella....