Like many other footy fans, I was a little surprised when referees’ boss Tony Archer announced a series of adapted methods of utilising officials in the upcoming preseason matches.
The chorus of knockers responded immediately, without, it seems, a serious thought lent to the proposal. Without even watching how it might assist our refs reach higher rates of consistency in this always difficult aspect of our sport, everyone would like to pull it all down.
Get more Brian Smith opinion at SmithySpeaks.
Those people who jump in to decry even the announcement of these trials of officiating models reveal their inflexible and know-it-all attitudes. A portion of those people are also the most vocal when poor on-field or video-box decisions are made. Go figure.
I feel for those in charge, who are willing to give something different a try in an honest effort to improve things. But how are those in charge of officiating matches supposed to meet the challenges they face if they are to be howled down when they take positive action towards improvement?
It’s all too easy to say something new won’t work, especially if you then can sit in waiting for the first time a ref or group of refs make a bad call.
Everyone wants a simple answer to problems and I am sure Tony Archer is just like the rest of us on that matter. But it appears that if there is a simple way to improve refereeing standards no one has found it.
Perhaps the solution is complex, unfortunate as that might seem. The 10-member officiating team trialled in the Charity Shield is certainly a target for the negative naysayers, but what is there to lose by taking a brief look at it?
If we take a few minutes to look at the detail in what role each official has it certainly makes sense to me. Bear in mind we already had six officials working at every NRL match last season.
So let’s look at what the four introduced refs will do.
They are all to operate at ground level with two of them as in-goal judges at either end. These officials have played a role in the past when there was no video referee.
There were a number of us who wanted them to stay as part of the crew, even when the video official was introduced.
There are two reasons for their retention. The first is that sometimes the in-goal official has a better look than all of the cameras.
It sounds like a stretch, I know but it does happen, and almost all of what the video ref and in-goal officials deal with relates to point scoring, so there’s bound to be a match deciding call from them at some stage.
So simply by improving the chance to get a call right rather than wrong, or even a better guess from the on-field ref who is currently forced into making his own call prior to the video ref’s inclusion.
The second, I am guessing, is to reduce the use of the video ref, meaningless time spent waiting for the technology to arrive at its conclusion. Again, that would be well worth these re-employments as it could result in speeding up the breaks in the action of the game.
The roles of the other two officials, positioned on the touch lines, is an attempt to have it all when it comes to touchies assisting the men in the middle. In previous decades the touchies were positioned in line with the ruck to make calls on passes, especially from dummy halves.
That was abandoned when their job description made assistance with ruling on the 10 metre defensive line the most important contribution they can make.
So in this model we would have both those aspects covered by the dual positions and from both sides of the field.
The main ref and his assistants will continue in unchanged roles as I understand it.
The roles in the 10 member system seem to make sense and could see that reduction in refereeing errors. The obvious concern is how those refs will manage the communication required.
Let’s see how it goes. You never ever know if you never have a go!
Russell Johnson
Guest
"I watched the Waratahs match ..." !!!!!! The real question is WHY? Simple explanation though; That's because you need a Rosetta Stone to get a grip with Vichy rules. The Barry I did the same and life is much better without the whinging and unfortunately this referee problem is actually a problem of attitude in the game generally it is a culture that needs addressing.
The Barry
Roar Guru
DOW - 100% agree with this. Kick for touch and re-start tackle count was ok up to 1980s when teams were lucky to make 30 metres in a set of 6 but now that teams regularly make 50+ metres per set it's too big a reward for minor indescretions.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don't argue with you at all on that point DOW. As I mentioned above I made a pact last year not to bag refs because I was sick of spending Monday mornings whinging about decisions. It was the best thing I could have done. I fell apart in the rnd 25 game v the Rabbitohs when we got completely stitched up :-) There is something not right with the NRL culture of non stop bagging refs but the captains challenge will accentuate that not stop it in my opinion.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
I think the biggest problem is that the reward is too big. There should be minor and major indiscretions for penalties. One just restarts the tackle count, the other as it works now (kick for touch/goal/quick tap option).
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
I watched the Waratahs match yesterday, there were some horrible decisions, especially one that put the Force out of reach with a try that looked that the person receiving the ball was offside. But you know what, the commentators mentioned it, but there wasn't 100 replays to check it, or any real complaining about the decision. They just got on with it accepting the ref's decision.
Russell Johnson
Guest
Players getting upset with a ref? That's incredible, no wonder you had to turn off! Are you alright? Do you need counselling? And just how many of those decisions were incorrect?
Russell Johnson
Guest
This would be true if the people watching it 1) Knew the rules in the first place 2) Were willing to do it themselves and see if they like that level of criticism and 3) Were remotely capable of accepting a decision against their team as being the correct one ! to paraphrase " Them what can't - WATCH!"
Walter Penninger
Roar Guru
The only chance the referees deserve is the chance to become linesmen or lineswomen or linesother sexes.
lmm040183
Guest
Watching the Warriors v Penrith game now. I think rugby league is becoming too complicated when not a single set of six passes without a penalty.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
Oh really? A break you say ? I had to switch off the tv on the NRL All-Stars game -especially the 2nd half the ref was so biased towards the Indigenous All-Stars it wasn't funny -the NRL A-S team where whipped into such a state by the ref that they were just standing around waiting for the next penalty the ref was going to give the other side it was worse than a joke for me who really doesnt care about this rubbish anyway
Russell Johnson
Guest
So Hamnur changing the colour would solve all the problems discussed on the rest of these posts , fantastic! Talk about thinking outside the box! " There's something wrong in the neighbourhood - Who ya gonna call ? HAMNUR!"
Hamnur
Guest
Can we pls fix their silly pink uniforms?! What about all all-grey outfit - very plain, very unremarkable. Pink is a color that attracts contempt in a man's game.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I thought they introduced a second ref so one could monitor the ruck and the other keeps the defence back. If touchies are doing that now what is the second ref doing now? That's all that ref has to do at that point in the game. Is touchies blowing offside penalties from the sideline with no context a positive for the game?
The Barry
Roar Guru
But the problem with people complaining about refs isn't about what's happening on the field it's about the replays and conjecture and coaches, players and fans whinging after the game. It's okay that we have to get on with the game at the time but it doesn't change the incorrect decisions after a captain runs out of challenges or the whinging after the game. There's pluses to captains challenge but stopping complaining about refs isn't one of them.
Russell Johnson
Guest
I agree Brian that something coming from refs themselves is great, every organisation or group need to constantly look to improve that's more or less a normal process for everyone apart from CEO's and bankers! I don't think our attitudes to refs and their decisions helps and I believe some pundits and modern technology have not helped, someone on here said that all fans whinge for a few days. I am sure that was the case in the past but I think we now live in face book world and just as better players need protecting from villains on the park refs need some protection ( support) in these constantly changing bitter social media times. On another note what about coming back to SL Brian Salford job looks like being vacant soon! You know it makes sense! And they could certainly benefit from your total approach to club organisation.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
No one is saying that things will improve 100%. But what it does do is allow people to get on with the game. If you don't like the refs decision, then challenge it, or shut the hell up.
Brian smith
Guest
Perhaps the fact that this has come from the referees themselves as opposed to any other body or individual suggests they feel this is needed or worth a go. Perhaps this proposal is the result of their weekly reviews where the errors and quality decisions have been discussed many times over. Perhaps they believe this can produce a more consistent judgment of the thiusand decisions they make every match. Whatever the number of errors made whether compared to the past or not surely the sign of a well run organization willing to trial new systems for improved performance is very healthy.
Brian smith
Guest
Your example of what u would like to see trialled is frivolous unlike a sincere and well thought out proposition as Archer's plan is. The roles of touchies has nothing to do with their load. It is the specific role based on the need to directly in line with passing or 10 metres to provide best opportunity to make critical and multiple decisions.
Russell Johnson
Guest
Couldn't agree more, we need evidence that standards were better, proof that they've slipped and illustration of how long they've been declining for! My whole stance is that coaches coach to the odds the PTB/forward pass is worth the risk if the odds are as stacked against being pulled up as you say. So in other words who is taking the mickey the refs or in fact coaches? And I'm not saying you couldn't help refs become better through a proper set of coaching courses and projects but those should be done anyway and not under the banner that refs are rubbish in the first place.
Russell Johnson
Guest
Hearsay isn't the only term I used to describe this situation. I believe there is a virtual Tsunami of hysteria aimed at refs to which a lot of people who should know better have subscribed. The evidence you refer to as in televised/ video evidence is simply open to interpretation and almost entirely subjective. As I said the focus on those wrong decisions and the lynch mob face book rubbish added to pundits who seem to need anger management when it come to refs and you have all the ingredients for a grade one farce and a hanging. So mush so that when anyone even suggests that the fault might not be refs they're pilloried almost as much as the refs themselves. As my wife says when the ref makes a wrong decision against her team "Well they'll just have to play better now, won't they?" No one is saying there aren't wrong decisions but there are far far far more right ones with more or less every RL ref I've ever seen. This whole issue is based on the modern nonsense stance of feeling hard done to and everyone's against me. This becomes a crowd madness about refs in RL which is akin to the idea that Martians shot Kennedy using a poisoned umbrella, its a feeding frenzy which needs to be ridiculed for all it's worth !!!!!