Error-ridden NRL referees should face the music

PLEASE get those so called (TRAINERS) of the field,they are making the game look as stupid as Gridiron.And why, in this electronic age, does it take sooooo long for the video ref to make a decision?And why dont they stop the clock every time the ball goes dead? Then WE might get our 80 minutes of football.

I think it's a bit of both. Some of the rules regarding obstruction and strips are ludicrous. On the field it appears this way also, with NRL referees not giving much of an explanation, with one referee saying in the Knights vs Tigers game saying "there are 26 blokes on the field, 25 without the ball, doesn't mean you can tackle them". You wonder why players get frustrated. I found aswell that the body language of referees has fallen - you watch them. They just don't look confident, like the Bill Harrigans. Their signals are often rushed and flimsy. It contributes to the perception that they just don't know what they are doing out on the field. Again, look at the Knights vs Tigers game, where, at 10-6, Tigers elect for a shot at goal. Instead of slowly pointing both arms to the sticks, like rugby union refs, there is a belated point of the finger. These things are hard to explain without seeing it though. If you pay attention to the body language of referees on the field, it just looks like they are not in control.

Wrong refereeing discissions spoil football games, in fact they ruin them. If a player continually makes mistakes his team mates and coach soon sort him out. Referees should be accountable for their indiscressions. They are a crucial part of the game and should be treated as such.

How do you expect the referees to keep up with the rules when the powers that be keep changing them and not changing the ones that are the problem? I defy anybody to be able to tell if the ball has been stripped or dropped every time. It is a stupid rule. If you cannot hang onto the ball you should not be playing first grade. What is a shepherd now? It used to be if you ran behind one of your own players you were shepherding. Now the rule has more sub-sections than the road rules.

I couldn't agree more Barry. Yesterday in the Panthers v Roosters there were two essentially identical situations where in one situation over-refereeing caused a needless stoppage that took away all advantage from the non-offending team .... and the referee caused the stoppage because he said they got no advantage!!!! This situation was the Panthers attacking less than 10m from the Roosters line, a pass was knocked down and knocked on by a Roosters defender, the Panthers regained the ball and advanced it about 3m closer to the line via a further two passes. When the player was tackled the referee said 'no advantage' and brought it back for the scrum. The Panthers had the Roosters defence shot to ribbons, setting a scxrum simply allowed the Roosters to rest and set their defence. Why didn't the ref simply restart the tackle count and allow the Panthers to attack tired broken defence? Later in the game Anasta knocked on and the Panthers gained possession. Their player was tackled immediately but no scrum was ordered, it was simply Tackle Zero play on. Where is the difference in these two decisions? Referees must be allowed to referee intelligently applying the greatest advantage to a non-offending team, sure occasionally mistakes will be made, just as players make mistakes all the time, it is part of the game. Please don't make the refs officiate like robots let them make some intelligent decisions.

I agree, there are so many nitty gritty rules that the referees constantly find themselves blowing the whistle these days. I can handle a referee making a mistake if he tries, but it seem sthe referees like the sound of their own whistle and are being over-vigilante trying to impress their boss. As an avid league fan, it makes me sick, and I never thought I'd say it but I'm thinking about quitting watching the NRL and at best, I might wander down and watch the local league where refereeing isn't so predantic. Rugby union is trying to reduce the number of penalties in their game and it seems league is introducing more, nobody wants stoppages but the NRL are shooting themselves in the foot and making it this way. Free flowing is the key! If you watch any of the classic matches it's games from the 80's and 90's where it was tough and entertaining, I don't think I've seen too many classic games from the modern era with 72 penalties a game and 24 video referee referrals, it's highly frustrating and it's ruining a great game. Scrap the video ref and make it a simple game again, without all the nitty gritty or you will lose fans faster than you know it.

BM, apparently, it is a NZ S14 initiative only.

I beg to differ Steve .... very few rules have actually changed, its the interpretations of the rules that keep changing .... the rule chage you have when you don't have a rule change.

Steve, at the start of this year's Super 14 we were told that refs were going to quizzed post-match (either in the presser, or in the tunnel with Rod Kafer), but by the second or third round, this initiative was conspicuous by its absence. It's a great idea, but I can also see the scenario where ref says post-match, "from my view, it wasn't forward and I called it as I saw it.." only to have Robert Finch declare two days later that it was forward and said ref will be at Wentorthville this Sunday..

Or the interpretations of the rules? For instance why do refs have to judge whether or not a team has advanced the ball far enough (10 metres) before it has been deemed that they have gained the necessary advantage when they gain possession after a knock on? Some of the current rulings are just ludicrous. Likewise some supposedly high tackles that are penalised on the field ... I've seen decisions where an arm draped over a shoulder is deemed a high hit .... what utter crap!!!! Shoulder charges do more damage than the supposedly high tackles these days. I would prefer to see more scrutiny of the tackle area ... slowing down the play the ball, hands on the ball, keeping effective control of the ball etc. Referees are individuals and thoughts and are human ... which means that it is impossible to have them referee like robots and that it must be expected that they will make mistakes. It would be better if no post match judgement or public critique of referees was allowed and to keep the referees training, review, discipline in-house and out of the media.

Is it the refs? Or the rules?