Two referees for NRL matches

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Sideline officials my arse they should have their titles demoted back to sideline officials as they are useless.

 

[dubby]

the touchies are the ones that are farked.
they dont call nothing.
they are the ones that should the be refs thrid eye.

the video ref doesnt even come into the equation unless asked by the ref.

having two refs will be a positive i believe.
if this is a success, could this mean the end for the video ref?

I think the VR is here to stay; but the fact he cant get it right (even for obvious calls at times) begs the question; should the VR get canned?

I agree with your points BTW. Fact is the 4 of them still get it wrong. Why introduce a 5th bloke to get it wrong?

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/13/2418930.htm

Lockyer wants trials before new rule changes

Australian rugby league captain Darren Lockyer says that any major changes to the game need to be properly tested.

Representatives from NRL clubs as well as Great Britain and New Zealand are meeting in Sydney today to discuss the major issues in the game.

One of the ideas being discussed is the use of two referees in the NRL.

Lockyer does not want to see new laws applied unless they have been shown to work.

"There needs to be a bit of trial and error. That's what trails are for," he said.

"After those trials are played get some feedback from the coaches and players and... if the majority think they're going to work then I can't see why we can't do it."

 

[ozbash]

Its a good idea, I think, but the standard of reffing has to lift. Where will the refs come from ?

Otherwise we'll have 2 idiots running around instead of 1.

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

Two referees on the ground will not change whether the grapple tackle is monitored closely or not. What needs to happen is the ONE referee on the field has to stop being so lenient with his held call and start blowing the pee out of his whistle if players hang around too long, it's that bloody simple. The ability to lie all over the player and get away with it is what allows wrestling to enter the game in the first place.

 

[adamkungl]

I can hardly believe the vitriol from some against this. It IS NOT a proposal to change any rules, just adding a ref on field to help with those rules. It is not fair on the ref's as it stands. Two refs will likely also help with reducing dependancy on the video ref.

How the f**k is it not fair on the refs currently. Theres 4 of the bastards watching the game at once! They arent the ones tackling and getting hammered, if they cant keep up, quite simply fitness standards need to rise.

 

[skeepe]

I don't like it.

Think about it... how often do we as fans, and the players themselves, complain that the rules and interpretations change week to week, or - more importantly - from referee to referee? Now, at the moment it's not ideal, but at least the difference between interpretations happens in different matches. With what is being proposed here, we could very well see differences in interpretation within a single match! Now that would be more frustrating than anything we have seen on a football field so far.

 

[skeepe]

How the f**k is it not fair on the refs currently. Theres 4 of the bastards watching the game at once! They arent the ones tackling and getting hammered, if they cant keep up, quite simply fitness standards need to rise.

I'm not sure you realise how refereeing works. Try it some time.

 

[rupertpupkin]

Yep. There are no less than 4 sets of eyes on the play already, how the hell is another ref going to change anything except for the worse? This is just an excuse. They've been champing at the bit to do this for some time. What's an extra hack going to do? When the tackle is being executed, what is the field Ref looking at? The crowd? The Video Ref has a damn camera on it, in close up. What are the touchies doing? They sure as hell don't seem to be policing the 10 anymore. Sounds like job creation to me. That, and yet more stoppages and breathers for a jaw session between the "2 refs". Serendipitous bonus would come in the form of opportunity for more ads.

Get the touchies back into policing play again. Get the Ref to apply the rules consistently. Bring back the 5m... for both defence and attack. Let the marker contest the play the ball, and defend. Most importantly, dump the damn interchange. It's no surprise it has turned into "wrestling", when "tag-team" rules were introduced.

But they won't do it. It could end up being Rugby League again. News Ltd/NRL have their "product" they way they want it, for TV. Rather than go back, they will continue to introduce new tweaks in the attempt to fix the problems created from the last tweaks. Suspect that News Ltd loves the wrestlin' and it isn't going anywhere under the current model. They might crack down on certain holds and hits, but the rasslin is here to stay.

 

[Cardinal & Myrtle]

Inconsistency of the decision making will be the main issue with 2 refs on the field. Some refs keep a slim 10 mins while others keep a generous 10 mins. While some refs are more generous in the play the balls while others aren't.

Saw it in the trial between South Sydney v Cronulla last year and the difference in interpretation of the rules was evident.

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

So there'll be 5 officials involved per game next season? Rediclulous.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Inconsistency of the decision making will be the main issue with 2 refs on the field. Some refs keep a slim 10 mins while others keep a generous 10 mins. While some refs are more generous in the play the balls while others aren't.

Saw it in the trial between South Sydney v Cronulla last year and the difference in interpretation of the rules was evident.

I'm fairly confident this could be a good move. If it lowers dependency on the VR then that would be great.

If this was the case, surely they should have one ref policing some aspects of the game and the other one policing the rest. You don't need both refs marking out the 10 meters. I guess it is a question as to where they will stand?


rupertpupkin, I can't find a motif for why News would want wrestling in the game.

 

[Bulldog Force]

FMD. What's the point of the match review committee then??? Why do we need 2 referees to handle grapple tackles when the match review committee takes care of that. It appears every year the NRL make a major decision that f**ks the game and the fans over. I'm sick to death of this sh*t.

 

[adamkungl]

I'm not sure you realise how refereeing works. Try it some time.

Feel free to actually explain

 

[rupertpupkin]

miguel-
Advertising/marketing weasel logic. It's only a suspicion, granted. But based on following the trends in how the game has been packaged, presented and framed on TV, combined with the changes and how play is being "interpreted" to not just allow the wrestling, but encourage it. The game is becoming progressively dominated by extreme close-ups. Much has been made of the game's potential appeal for TV broadcast due to the focus of attention for TV viewers. This has become something of a fetish. Big sweaty men, in skimpy clothes, rasslin' each other is "sexy". Wide shots of open play is not as desirable. It's an advertising thing about getting the casual viewer to look, rather than watch, per se. "Sex" = advertising gold. Again, it is just a suspicion. But remember who is running the game now. News Ltd. Advertising weasel central.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

miguel-
Advertising/marketing weasel logic. It's only a suspicion, granted. But based on following the trends in how the game has been packaged, presented and framed on TV, combined with the changes and how play is being "interpreted" to not just allow the wrestling, but encourage it. The game is becoming progressively dominated by extreme close-ups. Much has been made of the game's potential appeal for TV broadcast due to the focus of attention for TV viewers. This has become something of a fetish. Big sweaty men, in skimpy clothes, rasslin' each other is "sexy". Wide shots of open play is not as desirable. It's an advertising thing about getting the casual viewer to look, rather than watch, per se. "Sex" = advertising gold. Again, it is just a suspicion. But remember who is running the game now. News Ltd. Advertising weasel central.

I don't know about your conspiracy theory given that the league audience has got to be at least 80% male heterosexual. Maybe you're thinking about another football code.

 

[rupertpupkin]

I don't know about your conspiracy theory given that the league audience has got to be at least 80% male heterosexual. Maybe you're thinking about another football code.

New streams = gold. Certainly hope it is an unfounded assumption. There are some people who seem to be genuinely pushing the game towards what it should be. Hope that they prevail. But the overall trend appears to keep coming back, despite brief respites.

 

[ozjet1]

i wonder what those players who attended the forum, looking as though they'd just woken up and dressed up in attire more suited to the beach, added to the discussion.

great look on tele fellas, very professional. no wonder the game is going nowhere. :roll:

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/nrl/story/0,26746,24705313-5003409,00.html

NRL club CEOs give go-ahead to two referees

| November 25, 2008 03:11pm

THE NRL is a step closer to introducing two referees in premiership matches after club bosses gave the go-ahead today. The annual club chief executives conference at Byron Bay also accepted recommendations to limit the powers of video referees.

The proposals, which had already been endorsed by coaches, players, and media and game representatives at a conference in Sydney, will be taken to the NRL board on December 11.

The two-referee system will be applied only for first grade NRL matches with one referee to oversee the play-the-ball and another to stand 10 metres from the ruck.

The 10m referee would be the one to whistle stoppages or penalties and the second referee would communicate directly to the referee controlling the whistle.

Referees will have the option of alternating roles during the match.

NRL chief executive David Gallop said: "It is something that has been debated many times and there is a strong view that we need to try it and to see if it does in fact lead to the outcomes we all want which is greater consistency and a better flowing game.

"If it doesn't add value or if it is not proving effective then we would review it and make further changes if and when necessary."

The club CEOs also endorsed a football operations conference recommendation that video referees should no longer be involved in determining penalties for stripping of the ball in tackles and agreed video refs could assist in alerting the referee to foul play only on the proviso the incident was of a serious enough nature to warrant the offending player being placed on report.

The NRL is also planning to introduce a specific judiciary category to cover grapple tackles and wrestling. Previously charges in this area have been laid under the heading of contrary conduct.

The NRL has also recommended a minor amendment to prevent time-wasting around scrums. Under existing guidelines the referee will blow time off when one side forms a scrum but he will signal time on the moment those players disengage to change roles with other players.

Among other issues discussed today was a proposal for the game to restrict coaches and players from making comment in relation to any impending judiciary hearings.

The Cowboys have also put forward a proposal to change the loading calculations for prior similar offences under the judiciary code and it has been agreed that there will be further examination of the loading system next year.

The CEOs have today endorsed an NRL proposal that a player's carryover points reduce by five points per match he completes without further charge.

The judiciary chairman will also be asked to provide a clear set of directions to discourage the Billy Slater tactic of leading with the feet to prevent a ball carrier grounding the ball over the tryline.

 

[ozbash]

The club CEOs also endorsed a football operations conference recommendation that video referees should no longer be involved in determining penalties for stripping of the ball in tackles and agreed video refs could assist in alerting the referee to foul play only on the proviso the incident was of a serious enough nature to warrant the offending player being placed on report.

Fair enough. That will hopefully include grapples.

Among other issues discussed today was a proposal for the game to restrict coaches and players from making comment in relation to any impending judiciary hearings.

Bad move imo, the coaches have a rightto comment/criticise. All this does is further protect the inept refs.

The NRL is also planning to introduce a specific judiciary category to cover grapple tackles and wrestling. Previously charges in this area have been laid under the heading of contrary conduct.

Biggest issue in the game imo, they have to stop it completely.

The judiciary chairman will also be asked to provide a clear set of directions to discourage the Billy Slater tactic of leading with the feet to prevent a ball carrier grounding the ball over the tryline.

About bloody time too...