Civoniceva was a victim of a lack of consistency

Strucy summed up part of the problem - the team that Petro may have dissadvantaged through a reckless tackle receives little compensation for the offence, other than the immediate penalty awarded - whilst teams that are yet to play the Panthers over the next two games somehow receive full reward with Petro unable to compete for the entire match whilst he is suspended. Where is the justice in this case and most others? How about if Petro was also banned from playing against The Bulldogs in his next two games - regardless if he moved to another club? The State of Origin could possibly be looked at differently with players suspended from both future State of Origin and International fixtures when found guilty - though not from their local club fixtures - and vice-versa.

Even nice guys make mistakes and Petero's "coathanger" was executed almost to perfection - steady yourself, line the victim up, stiffen the arm and time the swing to land the blow to the head just as the player reaches you. I say it was executed almost to perfection because if Petero had really let fly he would have decapitated the unfortunate Bulldog player. I can only put it down to a brain snap, because as you say Luke, Petero plays the game hard but is not considered a "dirty" player. If you consider his one brain snap out of all the games he has played, to the error rate of the referees, touch judges and especially the video refs, there is no comparison. It has gotten to the stage where I believe the video ref has become a waste of time. He is only there so that the replay screen sponsor gets as much exposure as possible.The referees are not a protected species and if they make a truly terrible decision, then they should be criricised for it, just as a player is critciised if he has a shocker. But to be fair to the referees, a lot of criticism aimed at them is pure nit-picking and supporter bias. Unfortunately, the fastest growing group of critics comes from people betting on the game. But games being sponsored by legalised gambling is a topic for another day, and dafe I say it, a scandal waiting to happen.

We all want consitency, but let's not have it at the expense of getting the calls right. Petero's hit was a clear send off. Feet planted, fist clenched, swinging arm to the chin. If there were 9 other similar or worse tackles this year that didn't result in send offs, the refs got it wrong 9 times and right once. Not great, but better than getting it wrong every time.

The only issue with consistency above all else is that it paves the way to justify getting it wrong just because it's been gotten wrong a dozen times prior and then the question becomes, at what point do we start getting it right again? I'm all for major changes to the rules coming in at the beginning of a season, like the cornerpost ruling should have been , but I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea of existing rules falling by the wayside for any length of time. Within the context of a single game I agree that consistency is probably the primary goal, but what if the response to Parramatta's match winning forward pass against Manly in Round Two set a precedent that forward passes were okay? As it stands, it made up for a couple of questionable tries from the Sea Eagles. Who knows? Petero's send-off maybe have been an attempt to even things up after a very ordinary decision to award a try to Waterhouse without consulting the video ref. Potentially, Glenn Stewart was allowed to stay on because the referees knew they'd made a blunder when missing obstruction on Matai in the scoring of a Roosters try.

Unlike most people, I reckon the NRL referees do a reasonably good job. And they do it under the pressure of knowing 400 blowhard dickheads on TV and radio will get stuck into them for a week if they get something wrong. Sure there have been some incorrect decisions, but that will always be the case. At the end of the day, there's not too much doubt that the best eight teams will play out the Finals. So things can't be as bad as they seem.

I like the temporary suspension idea. If a referee deems a foul bad enough to warrant the player going on report, they are basically saying that they think that there would be a case to answer for at the judiciary. At the moment, a player can be placed on report in the 3rd minute of the game for a spear tackle for example, play the next 77 minutes of the match then front the judiciary after the game and cop a 6 week ban with no detriment to his team during the match in which the foul was committed. If every foul that warranted being placed on report was then "yellow carded" and being yellow carded meant that that player had to be replaced for a minimum of 10 minutes, this would mean using one interchange immediately and then a second interchange to bring that player back on to the field. This would disrupt a teams game plan with possible player positional changes to cover for the player forced to interchange as well as forwards having to stay on the field longer due to losing essentially 2 interchanges. Maybe then we would see some effects instantly by a player being placed on report without having to be a send-off. Then again, maybe referees will just stop putting players on report. Thank you for reading my opinion and I'd love your feedback.

agreed. they are damned if the do and damned if they don't. In every game that they ref, there is 50% people will be with EACH decision and 50% against. You only have to listen to the commentators, do they always agree which way the decision should go -- and if they can't agree with the technology art their fingertips (and expertise on the game) what chance does the guy in the middle have????. on Monday night we had three commentators saying it was worthy of a send of and others saying it wasn't, that was 15 minutes after the event.

What they are paid? Not sure but I know that the top tier are professional and don't have 'day' jobs.

I wonder, after reading fedup's comments what refs are actually paid? - do they have full-time jobs, if not, what do they do during the working week? - perhaps the NRL should pump a bit of cash into the pockets of some good refs in the hope of making this profession more feasable to young refs or better-yet, retired (but obviously fit) football players - surely the most well paid player on the field has less impact on the game than the ref (for good and bad reasons!) I believe that one of the new refs used to play fullback in the NRL and has since taken up refereeing - considering the likes of Langer and Toovey can spend 50% of the game on the field coaching their sides while "running water", maybe they would make good refs - this might be a good career option for ex-players (imagine General Patton as a ref next year).

I agree with Ken, this tackle deserved to be sent off. It was straight up and down a swinging arm to the head. He had alot of time to adjust himself, but didn't. Whilst he is noted a s a good guy, you need to ask why his tackle was so bad in this instance as compared to the thousand odd that he has made in previous games this year. Being 6Ft 4ins hasn't affected him all year so this excuse doesn't float with me. In saying that his was not the worst of the season and hopefully now that Finch has left the building the refs will get a boss who can guide them in a new direction. I would like to see a temporary suspension brought in much like it has been for Rugby. Whilst the full send off is still available, the yellow card (10 mins) allowsthe referee more options and would hopefully give them more consistency should they apply it well.

Yes Civoniceva should have been sent, but so too should countless others this season for identical and worse infringements including as Tom said, deliberate punches and very well talked about headbutts. The refs are the real problem, they take on a job which requires tough calls but then refuse to make them when required. They rely far too much on video ref calls for trys and trust touch judge calls over their own during play which often results in poor calls for things like forward passes, late hits etc. The problem is that because the refs are so scared to make tough calls, when they finally do make one it has a massive effect on the entire competition - because of the uproar of Stewart being allowed to play on after his hit on Anasta this alomost guarenteed the next high shot in teh very next game would be sent regardless of severity. It is impossible to believe that there has only been one send-off offence this year - that just says the refs are scared of making tough calls - if the refs policed ALL rules thouroughly and consistently , the overall standard of play would have to improve as coachs would not tolerate their players letting the side down for stupid things like fighting and high-shots - this would therefore improve the overall quality of the play for both the players and spectators. Please refs, for the good of the game, use the rule book consistently and correctly - don't pick and choose the rules on a game to game basis , grow a thick skin and back your knowledge of the game, ignore the ramblings of Phil Gould on how the game should be tough like in the old days, and if you find this job too difficult please resign your post and find a new job that requires less responsibility.

This article is the very problem with refereeing in general. If a mistake is made we jump on it with fury, if it is repeated it is a sign of grandiose incompetence that is a blight on the game, if it isn't repeated then loud cries of inconsistency ring out and it is a blight on the game. I'm baffled that the lowest paid guy on the field is expected to be the most perfect.

In the same vein of your article I think you're right but you're also wrong... Yes, there is huge blurring of where the boundary of a send-off offence is - I think Stewart and others over the course of the year should have had an early shower as well and I don't profess to understand why they didn't. However, while the weight of history says that this is not his usual go, Civoniceva's tackle was easily the most straightforward send-off offence I've seen in years. He stood planted, lined the bloke up and swung his arm heavily into the other guys chin - it wasn't a lazy arm as the guy wrongfooted him or a result of the other bloke falling quickly. If there is only 1 send-off this year (and I'm not saying I agree with that) it's fair enough that it's that one.

I've always wondered why punching someone isn't seen as a more serious offence. James Tamou of the Cowboys copped two weeks for hitting a bloke in the back of the head. Civo and Glenn Stewart's tackles were crude, but most probably stemming from a miscalculation rather than intent to cause injury. Whichever way you cut it, hitting someone in the back of the head has nothing to do with the game itself.