The aftermath to Trent Robinson's massive referee spray

if the NRL said intentionally touching the referee would result in a suspension players would be much more careful with their actions

I reckon Ashley Klein has it in for Qld based teams, just a personal perception, but you play the cards you're dealt. Roosters got more benefit than they lost from dubious calls in that dragons game. Only try not referred to the bunker wa a knock on and shouldn't have been given.

Point of difference in 'touching the ref', if he's in the way of a defender with eyes for the ball carrier or like Cam Smith in the way of the dummy half, The issue is different. Let's bring in the directive that anyone running at (or subsequently touching) the ref gets fined or potentially suspended. The earlier charges ensued from guys grabbing/handling the ref to make a point about a decision, Smith was trying to get to dummy half which is his job. Let's not end up like soccer with their antics, draw the line. Don't think Toni Carroll got suspended, did he?

As well, cast your mind back 12 months or so when Robinson had one of his tantrums. They won the next six or seven penalty counts.

Don't think deducting points will hurt them too much either:)

Agree Michael. League used to be such a simple game. The rules, in the main, were black and white. There was a slightly grey area in scrums of yesteryear but that was all. Compare that to the 50 shades of grey in union's laws especially the ruck, maul and scrum. League is getting that way now with so many interpretations available. In the old days, a hit to the head was penalised now it appears to be only penalised when the player goes down.

Again, you're looking at the refs as being the problem when it's still the players trying to cheat that is the problem. The players are penalised when they are on the line because that's when they are slowing the play the ball the most. It is essential that their team mates are in place when they are close to the line. If the defenders allowed the attacking team a quick play the ball, then it is try time. To avoid a certain try, defenders are willing to push the boundaries with penalties because they are confident in their team's defence so long as the play the balls are slow. Again, the problem is not the refs, it is the players. For some reason in RL the players are constantly testing the referee as much as their opposition. Players will creep inside the 10m unless the ref says something, they will hold down the attacker unless the ref tells them to get off, the instant a player loses the ball in a tackle he immediately claims the ball was raked and the refs believe them because enough players try and cheat by raking the ball, markers will try to cheat by getting out early, not being square, the players playing the ball will walk 3m off the mark because the ref doesn't tell them to get back. Everyone wants to enjoy watching a game where the ref keeps the whistle in the pocket, but it simply isn't possible becaue the players can't be trusted not to cheat.

I left the hands on the ball out, the way I see it this is a penalty that makes the referees look like they have had a few dollars on the TAB, every tackle has a hand on the ball yet the penalty comes when the defending team is on their own line or you see your team penalised & then watch the opposition have their hand on the ball time & time again & never ever get penalised!!!!!!!!

I wouldn't say 100% the coaches, the players themselves do have a say in their behaviour but otherwise I agree completely, for some reason when players break the rules, the refs are blamed!

The hand on the ball penalties are misunderstood even by the commentators. It is actually pretty clear (well as clear as any subjective call can be). When a player makes a tackle, they can obviously hold the ball or the ball playing arm to stop the offload but as soon as the ref calls held, the defenders can no longer hold onto the ball. They have no reason to hold onto the ball playing arm after held is called because the player can no longer off-load. The ref will penalise if after he calls held, the defender does something extra to slow the ball down like pull on the jumper, hand on the ball so they can't play it etc etc. These calls can be frustrating but it's not the ref's fault, it's the players who are constantly pushing the limits! Often, the penalties are because players milk them. Thay have a defender still touching them and they purposely lose the ball. The ref is forced to give the penalty because even if the attacker lst the ball, the defender shouldn't have been there. I never thought I'd be on the side of the refs but they cop way too much flak. Penalties are not the ref's fault, it's the players' fault. EIther they are milking it for a penalty or someone is purposely trying to cheat. Corey Norman getting sin binned was all Corey Norman's fault. Brad Arthur trying to blame the ref for the Cowboys running away with the game is a joke. He should have said the truth, that Parra were in the match right up until Norman cheated Morgan out of a try scoring chance and ended up costing the team and the fans a chance to watch a great game of footy.

In the first instance, Cummins told Friend that the tackle was late at least twice but Friend wanted a discussion or wanted to dispute the call which he does not have a right to do. Captains lost the right to discuss decisions with refs when they took advantage of it to slow the game down. Now, captains can only ask questions at designated stoppages in play. Napa's hit was not a legal hit, it was a shoulder to the head and deserved a penalty, the match review committee on later scrutiny decided that it did not warrant going to the judiciary that is not the same as saying that the tackle was fine. The conjecture is that it was the bunker that called it a penalty and they can only do so if they believe the incident should go on report to be reviewed by the match review committee. As Robinson said in the press conference, the bunker is not the match review committee and as such it is not for them to decide weather Napa's hit was hard enough to warrant suspension. They did their job, they reviewed it and saw that Napa made contact with the head and the incident should go on report. The debate is not if the penalties were warranted or not, they were and if the onfield ref had seen them himself without the bunker then we wouldn't even be discussing them.

just not to lordy

He wasn't dumb enough to refer to refs as the 27th man. That honour belongs to you. Didn't see your solution though....like I said, I'll wait and continue to post on your upcoming articles until you do. Put up or shut up.

10 what? dollars?

Maybe the way the game is run is amateurish. Rugby League is a simple game and yet year on end there are new rules that are constantly being introduced. It's overly complicated and it seems rather then adressing the problems head on NRL issue fines to try and silence out the critics. If the NRL wants to be taken seriously they should take better measures to promote the sport and they can start by listening.

Pete, you've played the man not the ball so I'm giving you ten in the bin, metaphorically of course :)

David, thanks for replying. I agree transparency is essential. That doesn't require coaches to berate refs in public. There is a process to follow to complain about a refs officiating and if there are issues with his behaviour. That should be done privately and made in writing when people have cooled down. The issue should be responded to in writing so there is a clear trail of what has been done. If you are still not happy with the response then the Chairman can take it up with the Commission. Refs cannot come out and criticise coaches and players behaviour publicly, so they shouldn't be expected to accept that themselves. The referee is an offical whose position is essential to the smooth running of the game. Attacking them only undermines them and the flow on effect at junior level needs to be considered. I can see nothing positive to be gained by the public denigration of referees except to appease the baying crowds and the egos of spoilt coaches. It leads to resentment and agendas, not a better process and meeting of minds.

It's fine for coaches to behave like pork chops. Robinson's emission is that there was a lack of respect coming from the referees and that is a problem. I think a majority of players know their role to respect the referees which they do however when you have a referee who doesn't return the favour and shows a lack of respect there's going to be a problem. Robinson is perfectly in line with his opinion and should be voiced. NRL issuing fines to silence the opinion of coaches is a joke and it seems like the only power play they have since they clearly don't like to listen to what they have to say even when they are making perfectly valid points on merit.

Agree with all of these, the worse is dummy half forward passes. There are at least 8 a game.

This. Arbitrary ruck penalties should just be a tackle count restart. Not all offences in the game are the same so the penalty should not be the same.