NRL fans have been complaining about refereeing more than ever in the last few years, and it is evident that there is strong dissatisfaction within the league community.
It is time that NRL referees stand up and make decisions on their own.
I can understand that being an NRL referee must be a tough gig. However, it’s not the decisions that the referees are making that are annoying me, but more so the amount of opinions at play.
With more opinions you get more conflict, which creates a problem. Two-referees on the field isn’t helping here.
I truly believe that way to fix this is getting the NRL to go back to a one-referee system.
During the past few days I’ve been watching video of old games dating back to the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, particularly because my team is doing poorly at the moment.
I decided to turn back the clock and relive some glory days.
My favourite part of watching these relics though is the flow of games. There’s only one referee, and therefore only one opinion, and that’s the way it goes. No arguing, no questioning, just a decision made on the spot. And the best part about it was that 99 per cent of the calls were the correct ones.
The NRL needs to go back to a one-referee system to give refs more authority. More authority will mean more confidence, more confidence will mean better decisions, better decisions will lead to an overall better game experience.
Referees like Tony Archer, Shayne Hayne, and Bill Harrigan demanded respect from all 34 players and both coaches from each game.
We need referees now to be taught to stand up and make decisions on their own and stick with them. Having more than one officiator contrasts the idea of having decisions made. So many times we see one ref make a decision and then the other barging in.
There is potential for some current referees to start taking responsibility, guys like Gerard Sutton and Ben Cummins have had moments where they have made some pretty admirable decisions, and a majority of the time they have been correct decisions.
While the quality might not be up to NRL standard, I implore you to watch a game of Super League. With one referee, the flow of games is so much better than that of the NRL’s standards. Their officials don’t take any crap from players, and dismiss them almost instantaneously.
If we want a better standard of NRL refereeing, we don’t need more refs, we need one person that can make the decision-making and stick to it. In a sport full of so many variables, two heads is certainly not better than one.
Dingo
Guest
And not forgetting the stripping the ball rule which is a lottery and enables refs to control the errrrrrrr pace of the game which of course is a euphemism for entertainment
Bill Blazejowski
Roar Rookie
I think the NRL has instructed officials to use the sin bin only as a last resort. This is impacting on the game hugely in terms of penalties given away by defending teams on their tryline, knowing they won't be marched. I believe much of the revenue for the game now is from the television contracts. With such a large audience viewing games, I believe the NRL likes to keep games close as possible, thus you get the reluctance to sin bin players and risk a blow out scoreline and also no shortage of "catch up" penalties given to get teams back into contests or to make it seem like they are keeping the count even. I still think the best era was the late eighties through to the mid to late nineties. No gang tackling, players could still tackle around the legs, the game was more expansive and there was no wrestling, players generally cleared the ruck area quicker.
Dingo
Guest
The 2 refs who get close games nearly every week get the SOO and surprise surprise the SOO games are close...I wish someone would keep stats on the number of decisions that go to the team trailling on the scoreboard - it would be sobering.
Oingo Boingo
Guest
But the $$$$ had already been banked so it didn't really matter, and consistency in punishment isn't really a benchmark the NRL strive for in recent times .
Niall
Guest
I think its fair to say that there are things going on behind the scenes that shouldn't be. Pressure on refs to keep games close etc. I can't agree on your Melbourne point though. If that was the case would they have taken those premierships off them? Would they have made them play for no points?
Oingo Boingo
Guest
I was vilified in a previous article for suggesting that the Storm are treated with kit gloves in order to keep them in the finals at all times , this being a manufactured outcome due to the threat of the AFL . Good to see were not all ostriches.
Muzz
Guest
What are the alternatives? The same 4 teams dominating every year? Fans would lose interest, TV ratings would plummet. The broadcasting rights deal would be substantially less! Top tier players would start switching to rival codes for more money etc etc. So when your team is being reamed, take a deep breath and think it's for the betterment of the game. The Dave Smith "Share The Love" business model lives on. And please, bet re$ponsibly.
Oingo Boingo
Guest
Surely your not suggesting results are manufactured to suit the outcomes, shame on you Muzz
Muzz
Guest
You lost me at "referees" They're game managers. It's no longer a sport! It's all about entertainment,making sure that the NRL is sustainable in a competitive sporting landscape and that it's major stakeholders make a profit.
Tripehound
Guest
As long as I can remember complaining about the ref as been par for the course. As already mentioned the tactical changes that have come into the game have the biggest impact on the flow/spectacle, but the biggest change to how the game has been officiated happened years back with the introduction of the video ref. With one fell swoop the technology took decision making out of the hands of the on field official and his touch judges and passed it on to the 'all seeing eye'. Add to this the multiple angle, slow motion replays that is scrutinised on the big screen by everyone at the ground and by everyone watching on TV, and what was once an instantaneous decision that may have had people grumbling (screaming even) for a few seconds takes on all the brouhaha and melodrama of a high profile trial by media while the game is stopped. Although the original plan was to resolve contentious try decisions the ultimate effect has been to steadily chip away at the referee's authority and confidence in decision making in all facets of the game. As has already been mentioned there seems to be more fluidity to SL matches with the one on field ref and in the non televised matches the video ref isn't used at all and these games, for me anyway, are far better for it. It seems strange for a sport with only two professional leagues in the world to operate under different rules, especially when there is a set of rules for international matches already in place.
Niall
Guest
Super League flows better because of the style and intent of play.
David C
Guest
What's worse than 1 referee who is too scared to make a decision? Two referees too scared to make a decision. As for challenges? Oh good grief, give me a break. Just get on with the game. If a close decision doesn't come out correctly then we can say the ref is human.
David C
Guest
I don't agree that the speed is faster these days. The ruck is a lot slower now with the wrestling that goes on and the number of players involved in the tackle. Round the legs tackling only occurs now as an after-thought, third man in.
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
I, like a few of the others on here, don't believe that it is the two referees that makes the difference. If anything, it is the tackling tactics that are employed by most teams these days. To keep the flow of the game, I honestly believe that a challenge system needs to be brought in, with two referees on the field (one being the pocket referee) to make all decisions live. No video replay unless a challenge is thrown. The major slow down in games is generally, the bunker intervening (unnecessarily) or going to a video replay for 5 tries (or more) in a game. If we let the referees do their job and left challenges up to the coaches, the onus shifts from the referee to the coaching box. As Womblat said, this would remove the whingeing instantly: if a coach doesn't like a call and doesn't make a challenge, that's his fault. Anyone who watches tennis will know just how much whingeing disappeared as soon as the challenge system was brought in...
Mctavish
Guest
With one referee there was too much room for referee control for its entertainment value although the senior ref rule of 2 hasn't changed much. As Roy Masters wrote of one single referee in particular " Referee X was a low-penalty-count ref whose few blasts of the whistle were often directed at teams threatening to run away with the match. The result was a low-stoppage, high-energy, end-to-end game that was often not decided until the final minutes. Referee X helped make State of Origin a valuable, visual product, and if he gets his way, the NRL will be the same."
Pilferer
Guest
I like one ref the test matches flow nicely. Watch a game of super league see what you think .
peeeko
Guest
check some games from the 97-02 era. much faster than these days
bbt
Guest
I was not a fan of the 2 referee control when it first cam in but now I think that is the the correct thing. The game is too fast for 1 referee. As for the bunker, I like it. The main problem that I have with current policing is the obstruction rule - it appears to change week to week. If a player is prevented from making a tackle, then there is obstruction. The benefit should always go to the attacking player, not the defender. This ridiculous situation where defending players deliberately run into dummy runners has to go.
Niall
Guest
Also. It's a fair point that the two referees may lead to indecisiveness.
Niall
Guest
I honestly don't know if we're better off with or without two referees. I 100% do not agree with the argument that's regularly put forward that the two referees has had an impact on the flow of the game. The game gets bogged down because of the way it is coached. The hit, grab/catch, twist and role. Whether we have one or two referees the techniques used defensively will not change.