Bring in Gould to fix the refereeing mess

Gould is a has-been!. He won't win another thing which is unfortunate for the Panthers fans. A hack who is highly paid to commentate yet needs to be entertained whilst working.

The spectacle for the fans is vital but not the only factor as some seem to think. Replaying line calls in tennis is all about getting the decision right for the players who deserve the right to accuracy regardless of the spectacle. If the Raiders make a miraculous charge to the Grand Final this year and are denied a win by a wrong call in the last minute then the 'spectacle' is a poor excuse to allow this to happen if a Captains Challenge can sort it out.

The bunker is here to stay and so is the 2 ref system. The problem is the human element of the bunker making incorrect calls, not the actual bunker itself being the problem. And all the noise coming from the bunker and the refs boss to the refs out in the middle while they're trying to ref the game. Stop distracting them!!

All we can hope for by introducing a Captains Challenge TB is a reduction in errors and that is a certain outcome. Sure if the Hand of Foran challenge is missed by the bunker then the Cows are duded. I believe the Hand of Foran incident and others would be different under the Captains challenge. Ref awards Manly try and JT challenges and says 'Foran knocks it on' which is passed on to bunker. Straight away you are likely to get the right decision. The bunker knows that JT would only challenge if he was fairly sure of the outcome , secondly the bunker is given something to check and will check it much more closely than they did. You are assuming that the dynamics in the bunker won't change TB but they will. If the bunker is still missing anything that a Captain has alerted him to then the situation can be improved by employing those who can. The Captains challenge will be introduced in the next two years for sure and all the fine details like how many challenges a Captain has will be reviewed.

The only way a coach's challenge works is if it's made immediately after the alleged offence without them having the luxury of multiple replays. That way, there's no gambles on getting your side a breather. Include some penalty such as a tackle count restart 20m upfield if the challenge is unsuccessful and only give them 2 per game. Remember, these are the guys who had players biting fake blood capsules to get a free replacement when the blood bin first came in, they can't be trusted. some of the HIA's have been debatable in recent times with guys getting a break for things like a poke in the eye, that's not why the rule was established.

As a well known rugby league guru has been oft quoted " no, no, no, no, no! that's not how the game's supposed to be refereed". Why not just give the panthers a premiership trophy and NSW a perpetual State of Origin shield now & save everyone getting belted for a season?

Deano, you haven't explained in any way how it won't work. At this stage we have had one trial game, and it worked. That's a 100% success rate. Just saying it won't work is ridiculous. You said yourself, "Let the refs do their job..." I agree. That is what this system is about. No going to replays on anything & everything. No having the bunker in their ear while they're trying to ref. No second referee over-ruling the main referee. One ref, doing his job, with a chance for his call to be challenged (occasionally). I have said many times that I believe the referees do a generally bloody good job! I'm not sure of the stats, but I feel like in the VAST majority of cases where referrals go upstairs, with a try or no-try call, the refs are/were right with the conclusion they had on the field. But, surely any true fan of any game wants to get rid of howlers (or at least get rid of most of them). 50:50 calls that don't go your way are part and parcel of any sport. But, the downright obvious mistakes should be taken out of the game with the technology we have these days...

I can see what you're saying TB, but, I think you're really trying to find the negatives a bit too much. In the Hand of Foran, you may well be right that they would have stuffed it up even if it went to video replay. And yes they would have lost all right to challenge after that. But, again, no one is suggesting that perfection is going to be reached: it's not! But, take the first three examples in this article. None of them were referred. If all of them could have been referred, do you think any of them would have been overturned? I think the Beau Ryan one would have (it was obviously a 7th tackle), I think the Tonumaipea one would have (if a replay was allowed, it would have been clear the siren had gone - very tricky in real time, but, a second look would probably have picked it up) and I think the Uate one would have (the touch judge even suggested it should go upstairs!) I also think there is a case that the Raiders one would have had a better outcome if it was referred upstairs under the right referral i.e. the players stopped because the flag went up. Instead, it was referred upstairs under the idea that there may have been a knock-on (something that touchies have no authority to raise the flag for), and there wasn't a knock-on. However, I don't think the try would have been overturned, simply because there is nothing in the Laws of the Game that say that players should stop playing if a touchie raises his flag. It is always play to the whistle. I have seen other games where touchies have raised their flag for a forward pass and heard the on field ref say, "No, that wasn't forward" and the touchie has lowered his flag again. What I am saying is that fans want more correct decisions. Well, just less incorrect decisions. The challenge system may allow that...

Gould has a couple of sides to him. He is a brilliant analyst and was a great coach. But he appears to have lots of agendas which inform the issues he rants about, people he likes, people he doesn't like, his current and previous roles, even his rose-tinted version of how things were when he was young. They're not all devious, but they are usually one-dimensional and idealist. Chalk me up as sceptical that he could make a positive difference in this role. I think he's better as a commentator than decision maker. Peter Garrett as a Labor minister comes to mind.

There is nothing more damaging to our game than Phil Gould. I hold him in no small part responsible for the perceived referee mess in the first place. Getting him to fix anything would be like asking bikies to fix drug problems in society.

Dreadful idea. I hope the NRL calls Gould's bluff and offers him a role. I guarantee Gould would find a way to turn it down. Get off the Kool Aid mate. Channel 9 aren't as smart as they think they are. It's always good to have and share an opinion, but you've just painted yourself as far too impressionable for lowest common denominator pandering .

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. He fixes the problem within 12 months, we can enjoy the game again,; he fails, he's got egg on his face and we're no worse off.

I’m not suggesting captains challenge is about perfection or mind reading but you haven’t addressed the scenario I’ve raised. Hand of Foran went to the bunker and they got the decision wrong by awarding the try. The captains challenge would have done nothing to eliminate that mistake. But under captains challenge the Cowboys would have no ability to challenge any further decisions. The ref can’t refer any close calls to the bunker. The Cowboys are completely reliant on the refs getting everything right without the use of technology. The captains challenge does absolutely nothing to limit the initial mistake and in this real life example not only does nothing to stop that error but actually increases the likelihood of further errors occurring.

If the hand of Foran case the whole dynamic changes if you have a captains challenge. Typically the ref will award the try if it looks like one and no bunker is involved. It's then up to the Cows to challenge and they should be able to say why they are challenging ( why not?) The bunker is instructed to check for Forans hand touching the ball and if they still get that wrong then they need to find another job. There is a misconception that the critics of the present situation are demanding some sort of perfection. It's mind reading and it's wrong, it's all about limiting mistakes as much as possible, nothing more or less.

I think we’ve had this discussion before. Your point is well made but I disagree about the challenge. A number of the errors here went to the bunker who then made an error. Take the hand of Foran incident a few years back. The ref awards try. The Cowboys challenge. The bunker makes a mistake and awards a try. We still have a howler but Cowboys through no fault of their own lose their ability to challenge any subsequent incorrect decision. The refs can’t refer either so any incorrect decision against the Cowboys after that point becomes a howler also and there’s nothing the refs or the Cowboys can do about it. I can’t see how that reduces the howling about howlers.

It will be abused as soon as they work it out. I’d imagine you’re looking something like the cricket system where If get a challenge right you keep the challenge. Won’t work !!! It’s not a good idea. Just let the refs do their job, accept that they aren’t perfect.The trade off is a far better game of footy. The obsession of the media on the minutiae is stuffing the game. Nothing about the bunker, or added technology hasn’t improved the game as a spectacle for the fans.

It's the principle that counts. The same thing could happen in this years GF and once the whistle is blown for a try there's no coming back.

clutching at straws comparing that Knights game to the others. The result had no bearing on either teams season. Manly would've played Penrith in the semi finals at Allianz Stadium, but would've used the other dressing room - and Newcastle would still have claimed the wooden spoon. Its hardly a top 4 howler.

How does a coaches challenge mean more stoppages? When the concept of a Captains challenge was first trialed in late 2016, the premise was that the on field referees make every call as they see it (no replays). The only time a replay could be used was if there was a challenge. The game they trialed it in was a 28:26 win to the Dragons over the Knights. 5 tries a piece. And how many stoppages? Zero. Not one challenge was made on that day. Now that doesn't mean that every game is going to be like that, but, it certainly shows that a challenge system doesn't necessarily mean more stoppages. There were a couple of tries in that game too where there could have been reason to go upstairs, but, the refs were told to call it live. They did, and got it right. If they had have got one wrong, so be it. But, I think it proves that the on field referees generally get it right and the Bunker is largely a waste of time.

As a rule, most refs get way more right than wrong. Sure there will be the occasional "wtf" call, but generally they get things done. I don't know if Gus is the answer, he seems to be of the opinion that we should forget the rules and referee by "the flow" or "the vibe". Not exactly confidence inspiring. The issue as I see it is that the current crop of refs are over managed. They are encouraged to use the bunker as much as possible (otherwise people might realise it's a massive waste of money) and are constantly under threat of being thrown under the bus. Having two refs on the field is also proving to be a wrong move. Pare back the bunker, scrap the pocket ref, get the earphone out of the refs ear and let them referee the game. Use the bunker only when completely necessary and only for a very specific reason. None of this "try, I think, lets check everything going back to the play the ball", instead it should be "try, I just want you to confirm he was onside". If the bunker agrees he was onside award the try. The rest sits with the referee and how he saw things. Bring back the 5 minute bin for minor infractions and use it judiciously until people get the idea that you can't keep giving away stupid penalties. Make it a binning offence to backchat the ref, and only the captain is allowed to talk to the referee. Not to argue decisions, or to point out how the other team has been doing it all night, but to get clarification on why a penalty was given so he can better instruct his team not to do it gain. The referees then need to be fully supported by their boss. If they make a few bad calls so be it, this happens. If they make some howlers, then they can be dragged over the coals behind closed doors and given a warning. Don't just dump people because they have a bad game, dump them when they are proven to be crap at their job and need to go back down a grade to work it out. Lastly, coaches should be able to question calls made directly to the ref after the game. Not in the press conference, but in a meeting with the referee before the press conference takes place. If the infamous touchie incident happened then Ricky could have gotten an explanation before he hit the media. He may still feel aggrieved (and rightly so in that case) but it should take a bit of the heat out. Equally after Cam Smith tackled someone in the act of playing the ball and was awarded the penalty for it (somehow that decision against the warriors has slipped through) Steve Kearney could ask his questions why directly. Nothing will take away the feeling of being robbed. It's a team sport, played at great speed with a million rules and someone in the middle trying his best to enforce them and make decisions in an instant. There is so much to look for it can be hard to catch everything. However we need to change the culture of ref blaming in League, and instead start focusing on the teams who actually play the game. Give the men in the middle some room, some support and some authority and let them loose.