A second referee could fix rugby's umpiring woes

WE are the problem We need to stop the complaining after every close decision that doesn't go our way We want perfect calls made every time and we also want refs to do it at speed with no consultation. It's not plausible

Well written Crazy Horse. And when the amateur players with their many and varied careers left the representative scene out the brand and the image of the game went with them.

Why stop at two onfield refs and two touchies PK? In my view the problems are firstly, the increasing complexity of the laws secondly the increasing reliance on the TMO, thirdly the generally poor quality of the officials and lastly the fact, as pointed out by Fionn above, that the touchies appear incapable, or unwilling or unable to make calls on the play.

i agree, they havent called them all (have reffed similarly to the past for the most part) and then randomly take someone out of the game when its his turn to be pulled up

theres 10m between the offside line and the ruck in league tho so croding each other isnt so much an issue

given we constantly complain about those who are the best in the world our expectations are evidently unrealistic.

simply the rules werent designed for play (and exploitation and analysis) by professionals

thats interesting peter, seems crazy limiting the AR involvement so much. i'd start by including offside in their brief and go from there.

if you want the tmo to use replays it slows it down but if he just calls it live over radio there shouldnt be any delay

There are already three referees on the field - the two assistant referees are there to police off-side and illegal play, plus a video referee - that is enough. ps Rugby doesn't have UMPIRES. That is cricket and AFL (because all the original clubs were a winter distraction for cricket clubs when the Victorian clubs broke away from the Southern League over hacking in the rucks). They took the rules of Gaelic football and added the mark and the oval ball from rugby union) Rugby and Soccer have referees because in the inter-school games and early association games, the two captains would decide on an infringement and if they couldn't agree, they referred it to and independent "referee" in the stand. Read a bit on the history of history of the football code. When did Old Etonians last win the FA Cup? it was in the late 1800's.

"people said the game would be ruined with the greater focus on contact to the head in January, and the game still looks pretty good (and a whole lot safer) to me." Not so sure, to be honest. Upping the severity of the sanction unfortunately exacerbates the effect of missed calls or inconsistency (eg, SBW's red vs SOB not even yellow).

My first sport was basketball where you can get two or even three referees working their zones of responsibility, but also being on hand to make vital calls when someone is unsighted. A quick confirmation and they either go with or alter based on what both saw. ARs should be treated like this and the (arrogant?) 'man in the middle' mindset must be changed. More penalties? Maybe to start, but after a very short time players will adjust and get themselves well behind the last foot (for example) ... people said the game would be ruined with the greater focus on contact to the head in January, and the game still looks pretty good (and a whole lot safer) to me.

Having two refs on the field has been a woeful experience in league. It has not worked. On the AFL, I thought they only moved from one to two field umpires?

Rolling away - good example. By the letter of the law, players only have to roll away from the ball. Penalties like the one against Wyatt Crockett in the third Lions test aren't actually illegal by the letter of the law - I guess the ref could claim offside, but they never do. They say, not rolling away when there's no law saying you have roll clear of the ruck.

I'm sure that sounded clever your head.

Doc If you concur that guidelines for ARs and TMOs need to be reviewed then, it is difficult to fathom why you believe the refs role needs to be reviewed. The ref IMO, is the first and obvious caller of any decision on the paddock. The ARs and TMOs first observance should be to notify of any indiscretion, against the current laws and allow the ref to decide what course of action or response, is then necessary. What is IMO currently happening, is that ARs and TMOs are not only notifying of any discretion but, are also becoming involved with deciding the course of action or response, to such indiscretion. This activity is where I believe, confusion enters into the decisions that follow especially if, in the referees opinion, the decision is a penalty but a call from the sideline or the TV box, deems the decision should be a card. My position would be that the referee, has the final input on a decision without, any outside influence from his assistants who should be there just to notify of any law-breaking situation and not have any input, upon what remedial action should follow. If it becomes the latter, then it means 4 overseers will decide the outcome of an indiscretion and merely adding a 5th overseer to that scenario, will encourage a circus atmosphere of indecision at the expense, of the man in the middle. Anyway, enough said.

The very first RFU laws in 1871 were written by a lawyer. Over time they became very comlplex, until they were re-written in the 1980s in plain language. There were two sets of rules for a while - traditional and plain language. We now have only the plain language version. There's just a lot of rules to apply.