The Rumours Thread

[Slippery Morris]

Dogs don't need a COE, they train at Olympic Park sometime in the NSW Rugby League sporting facility which makes sense seeing they are the NRL's favourite club. I see them often as I work close. The NSW origin team train there as well but I don't see any other NRL sides but the NRL's favourite club the dogs.

 

[Deacon]

I drive past Parras at kellyvilles most days if thats an COE they’re kidding

 

[justadragon]

I was just pointing out the stupidity of it. Point is, she should either be banned from no games or all games, not something in between where a potential conflict of interest is subjectively determined.

Agree, the NRL have opened up a can of worms with this, she has qualified as a REF and is expected to meet the Ref's code of conduct, simple as that. Surely you would expect in this day and age honesty and integrity from all the officials. This can be seen as lack of trust from the NRL.

 

[RedVee]

Agree, the NRL have opened up a can of worms with this, she has qualified as a REF and is expected to meet the Ref's code of conduct, simple as that. Surely you would expect in this day and age honesty and integrity from all the officials. This can be seen as lack of trust from the NRL.

Plus: are they going to investigate the work status of all the other refs?
Maybe one married Gus Goulds daughter? Or Uncle Nicks granddaughter?

 

[Anon]

Off Topic - sorry I couldn't find that blasted thing on refs and the bunker thread so I've decided to put this post on this thread.

Looks like Kasey Badger has been told by the NRL that she cannot be in the bunker for any Souths Games.

If that’s all it takes can someone at the club please offer her husband a job and while you’re at it one of Klein’s relo’s too.

 

[Dribble&Yarn]

Dogs don't need a COE, they train at Olympic Park sometime in the NSW Rugby League sporting facility which makes sense seeing they are the NRL's favourite club. I see them often as I work close. The NSW origin team train there as well but I don't see any other NRL sides but the NRL's favourite club the dogs.

purely to play devil's advocate here, the Dogs are also the closest geographical team to Olympic Park so it makes sense from that point (that being said, f**k the dogs)

 

[The Word]

So, can she referee a game that doesn't involve souths? If so, what if the result of such a game determines whether or not souths make the eight?

She needs to be banned from all games.

I've never gone down the road of questioning the integrity of the current referees in the game. I don't mind standing on the hill and occasionally letting them know they need glasses. But to imagine they would act in favour of a particular team due to being a fan or having family members there is a dangerous road to go down. It opens up all sorts of ridiculous complications. We really need to have more trust in our officials, all in all, they do a pretty good job in difficult circumstances.

 

[Dragon David]

I think somebody must have sent a memo to the NRL based on what I started with a post in one of the Threads on Refs and Officials in which I brought up this scenario of any bias shown by the officials if they followed a particular team and they reffed the game of the team they followed. I suggested that all officials let the NRL know which teams they followed.

Now that Kasey Badger has been banned because her husband Gavin assists at Souths they should also enquire with the partners and or relatives of other officials if they have an interest in any club.

I said that I knew of a linesman who followed the Balmain Tigers decades ago and has passed away ages ago that when he officiated a game involving the Tigers, footage of him running down the sideline and him jumping with glee when the Tigers scored, hahaha. It happened then and it is happening now.

 

[The Word]

Seems the High performance center is approved and construction will start pretty quickly.

The Dragons' $60 million High Performance Centre at Fairy Meadow has received the green light, after a decision was deferred due to "ambiguity" over some issues.
The plans were lodged with Wollongong City Council in October 2022, but any decision rested with the Southern Regional Planning Panel.
The facility, to be built on the northern side of the Innovation Campus, will include two playing fields, locker rooms, state-of-the-art gym, aquatic recovery centre, full physiotherapy facilities, spa and lecture theatre.
That panel approved the development just days ago, but it came after some concerns raised in a meeting in May this year saw a decision deferred.
Advertisement
Ad

"Whilst the panel accepted that council had undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the development application, it agreed that there was some ambiguity in relation to several matters that in the panel's mind required clarification," the planning panel's decision stated.
"This included mattes raised by community members. It also noted that the applicant had objected to several key conditions recommended by the council relating to development contributions, flooding, and stormwater management."
The panel requested further information around how the centre would not have an impact on existing street parking, details around the noise impact assessment relating to the community field and justification for its plan to defer the final design of the building and car park as it related to flooding and stormwater outcomes.
In terms of the design and flooding, the Dragons requested that "portions of the proposed building and car park south of the building that is in the floodway" could be constructed either at grade or on piers to allow unimpeded storage and conveyance of floodwater.
The council did not support this because amended plans and flood modelling were required. "The amendment to the condition in isolation without consideration of this information is not appropriate," the council report stated.
In response to the concerns over whether the 60 allocated parking spaces would be enough, the Dragons said car-parking studies has shown "there is sufficient car parking available on the Innovation Campus, and proposed to be provided through the development, to satisfy the demands of the further HPC without any reliance upon on-street parking".

ADVERTISING


Council traffic planners assessed these studies and concluded that the level of spaces "should be sufficient" to avoid on-street parking.
The panel's eventual approval noted the Dragons had agreed to all the conditions proposed by the council.
Join the conversation

Have your say.Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.
Rmments
It also noted the residents' objections over flooding, parking and the visual impact of floodlighting on the field, adding these and other concerns had been addressed in the revised conditions of consent.

Housing and Homelessness Minister Clare O'Neil launches Homelessness Week 2024. Video via AAP.
Dragons CEO Ryan Webb said the approval marked "an exciting time for the club" and was hoping the facility would be finished in 18 months.
"We've been working with a builder for the last few months, finalising design and costs," Mr Webb said.
Advertisement
Ad

"Now we have the DA, we can hopefully bring that to a head and sign a contract to begin construction in the next couple of months."
The aim is to see the Dragons teams training at Fairy Meadow the bulk of the time, rather than the current situation where things are split between locations.
"Currently, we run out of three to four different facilities," Mr Webb said.
"That's testing not just from a player perspective but from a staff perspective because you miss a lot of cross pollination, and the chance to learn and converse with one another on a daily basis.
"So this will bring everyone under one roof from our men's, our women's, our community programs, our junior programs.
"And I think that can just only benefit everything we do."

Just shows the level of detail required to get these things through. What a great result in the end, well done to everyone involved. Hopefully this is an extra selling point when we're trying to attract top young talent.

 

[The Word]

I think somebody must have sent a memo to the NRL based on what I started with a post in one of the Threads on Refs and Officials in which I brought up this scenario of any bias shown by the officials if they followed a particular team and they reffed the game of the team they followed. I suggested that all officials let the NRL know which teams they followed.

Now that Kasey Badger has been banned because her husband Gavin assists at Souths they should also enquire with the partners and or relatives of other officials if they have an interest in any club.

I said that I knew of a linesman who followed the Balmain Tigers decades ago and has passed away ages ago that when he officiated a game involving the Tigers, footage of him running down the sideline and him jumping with glee when the Tigers scored, hahaha. It happened then and it is happening now.

Sorry DD, just can't agree with you on this, I think it's taking the whole thing to far and will be impossible to manage. Enquiring about what partners or relatives support suggests a level of paranoia that would prevent anyone from ever wanting to do the job.

 

[Dragon David]

Sorry DD, just can't agree with you on this, I think it's taking the whole thing to far and will be impossible to manage. Enquiring about what partners or relatives support suggests a level of paranoia that would prevent anyone from ever wanting to do the job.

Yes, I know The Word. I think the NRL has said that this matter involving the Badgers is a one off and that will be the end of it. I just got carried away with the whole thing me being who I am. No problems and I trust the integrity of those officiating the games as it has been for over a century.

 

[since77]

I've never gone down the road of questioning the integrity of the current referees in the game. I don't mind standing on the hill and occasionally letting them know they need glasses. But to imagine they would act in favour of a particular team due to being a fan or having family members there is a dangerous road to go down. It opens up all sorts of ridiculous complications. We really need to have more trust in our officials, all in all, they do a pretty good job in difficult circumstances.

Yeah I've never agreed with the people who think certain referees are dodgy. I think there are certainly different levels of skill and wisdom within the refereeing ranks and I think there are certain referees who do a terrible job and have no feel for the game but I think the chances of having a corrupt referee in the ranks is zero.
That said I'd be happy never to have Klein, Sutton or C Badger officiate at our games ever again. All are differing levels of incompetent.

 

[blacksafake]

Isn’t Atkins a life member of the Penrith District RL?
If so why haven’t the NRL barred him from Panthers games.
Badger is an ordinary official but this is BS from the NRL & a slap in the face to her.

 

[Anon]

Isn’t Atkins a life member of the Penrith District RL?
If so why haven’t the NRL barred him from Panthers games.

I think you’ll find it’s the Penrith District Referees Association.

 

[Inisai Toga]

What about all the former refs that played for Sydney clubs before they turned to referring; they never barred them from officiating their former club games. See the perspective but I dunno…

 

[Gourley's Socks]

Yeah I've never agreed with the people who think certain referees are dodgy. I think there are certainly different levels of skill and wisdom within the refereeing ranks and I think there are certain referees who do a terrible job and have no feel for the game but I think the chances of having a corrupt referee in the ranks is zero.
That said I'd be happy never to have Klein, Sutton or C Badger officiate at our games ever again. All are differing levels of incompetent.

I agree that the days of deliberately crooked ref's are long gone but I reckon we'd be asking too much to assume that subconscious bias doesn't play a role either.

For example, if you know that a lopsided penalty count is going to cause you inconvenience (eg meetings, calls, please-explains, etc), then even at a subconscious level there may be a temptation to even things out over the course of a game.

Similarly, if people in positions of power over you have voiced their interest in a particular result - even if quite fairly eg a particular finals match up is better for business - then that too may have an impact.

And I'm not saying that either of these would cause someone to deliberately make a dodgy decision but I do think it's exactly the sort of thing that can influence a 50/50 call to be seen one way or the other.

We do it ourselves in this forum. We howl over being on the wrong end of contentious calls and we tend to be a lot more quiet over others where we've received the benefit.

It's just human nature and I don't think we can eliminate it any time soon.

 

[Trifili13]

Anyone with any knowledge about conflict of interest can see it is not a good look for the NRL to appoint a referee whose partner or close relative works for one of the teams they have been appointed to officiate. While the NRL has coped a lot of flack for some of its decisions, and correctly IMO, they have done the right thing here as I can see every decision Badger makes favouring Souths will be viewed as bias and the NRL cannot put their referees in that position.

 

[Dragon David]

I agree that the days of deliberately crooked ref's are long gone but I reckon we'd be asking too much to assume that subconscious bias doesn't play a role either.

For example, if you know that a lopsided penalty count is going to cause you inconvenience (eg meetings, calls, please-explains, etc), then even at a subconscious level there may be a temptation to even things out over the course of a game.

Similarly, if people in positions of power over you have voiced their interest in a particular result - even if quite fairly eg a particular finals match up is better for business - then that too may have an impact.

And I'm not saying that either of these would cause someone to deliberately make a dodgy decision but I do think it's exactly the sort of thing that can influence a 50/50 call to be seen one way or the other.

We do it ourselves in this forum. We howl over being on the wrong end of contentious calls and we tend to be a lot more quiet over others where we've received the benefit.

It's just human nature and I don't think we can eliminate it any time soon.

It is what it is and always has been. You win some and you lose some. The 1999 grand final had some contentious issues but now history. It goes on and on and we know that there are so many mistakes by both the on field officials as well as the bunker and Annesley has the job of agreeing or not agreeing with those contentious decisions but it doesn't change the score in the end. It is just all a point of view.

As you say Gourley, we blow up when calls don't go our way but hush up when they do when they shouldn't have. Even the commentators have their points of view when one will say he thinks it was a fair try and the other not agreeing and the decisions made by both the ref and bunker - how many times do they criticise the officials?

 

[since77]

I agree that the days of deliberately crooked ref's are long gone but I reckon we'd be asking too much to assume that subconscious bias doesn't play a role either.

For example, if you know that a lopsided penalty count is going to cause you inconvenience (eg meetings, calls, please-explains, etc), then even at a subconscious level there may be a temptation to even things out over the course of a game.

Similarly, if people in positions of power over you have voiced their interest in a particular result - even if quite fairly eg a particular finals match up is better for business - then that too may have an impact.

And I'm not saying that either of these would cause someone to deliberately make a dodgy decision but I do think it's exactly the sort of thing that can influence a 50/50 call to be seen one way or the other.

We do it ourselves in this forum. We howl over being on the wrong end of contentious calls and we tend to be a lot more quiet over others where we've received the benefit.

It's just human nature and I don't think we can eliminate it any time soon.

Yep I do agree with you on that first sentence. Certain refs are notorious "game managers". Klein is the number one offender and has the worst feel for a game I've seen in a long time.. I don't think he does it "deliberately" - but he has no skill or wisdom in how to ref a game the same way in both halves.
And then again there are many games in which it seems like a weaker side on the leader is punished because the team higher on the ladder has that idiotic buzz word concept of "momentum". I've watched a stack of games this year where teams like the Tigers (and to a lesser extent Dragons) where it really seems like the two teams are being refereed differently. Probably due to unconscious bias like you say.
Great example a few weeks ago in our Broncos game. You could just sense they were going to get helped back into the game. And then the late avalanche of points came.

 

[Hound of Dracula]

I agree that the days of deliberately crooked ref's are long gone but I reckon we'd be asking too much to assume that subconscious bias doesn't play a role either.

For example, if you know that a lopsided penalty count is going to cause you inconvenience (eg meetings, calls, please-explains, etc), then even at a subconscious level there may be a temptation to even things out over the course of a game.

Similarly, if people in positions of power over you have voiced their interest in a particular result - even if quite fairly eg a particular finals match up is better for business - then that too may have an impact.

And I'm not saying that either of these would cause someone to deliberately make a dodgy decision but I do think it's exactly the sort of thing that can influence a 50/50 call to be seen one way or the other.

We do it ourselves in this forum. We howl over being on the wrong end of contentious calls and we tend to be a lot more quiet over others where we've received the benefit.

It's just human nature and I don't think we can eliminate it any time soon.

Makes a lot of sense

It's that on-the-run 6 again that seems to escape any scrutiny, not the penalties nor the Bins or send-offs.

The 6 again calls, are potentially the greatest weapon to swing a game without accountability. Whether sub-conscious or deliberate from the ref. In the wrong hands a very suss rule.

I don't like them (6 again) at all!