It has been reported that Director of Refereeing Tony Archer has been stood down from his position.
This is off the back of numerous controversies throughout the 2018 NRL season and beyond.
Let’s take a step back and have a look at the last few years of refereeing in the NRL.
Archer himself officiated 319 NRL games, 13 State of Origin Clashes and nine international matches.
He was appointed the head of the referees in 2014 after Daniel Anderson’s one-year appearance.
Let’s also remember, Anderson replaced Bill Harrigan and Stuart Raper, who replaced long-standing referee boss Robert Finch.
Now, the NRL have sacked five-referee coaches in less than eight years. That’s almost as bad as some of the NRL clubs.
Do you think the standard of refereeing has improved since this merry-go-round started?
The one thing that hasn’t changed is the same people making these blatant errors, the referees themselves, are still refereeing!
Why hasn’t there been a major change in the ranks of referees?
I get the idea we need to keep the experience on the field but the new referees aren’t coming straight off the street.
A lot of them have been officiating for decades at the state level.
So, why aren’t we letting these experienced individuals move up into first grade, especially if the current crew aren’t performing?
Do we really need ten officials with 200 games of experience each to be refereeing at a top level if they are not performing?
It feels like to me, they want regular faces in the game over getting the decisions right.
Case in point: Clayton Sharpe. Sharpe officiated 201 Intrust Super Cup games and was widely praised for his 2012 grand final performance for having only blown two penalties the whole game.
Now, this wasn’t because he threw the rule book out the window. This was because he had control, patience and the ability to read the game.
So, why wasn’t he moved up to the next level? His age.
Apparently, being in your early 30s is too old to move you up to the NRL.
The reason for this was if they offered him a full-time contract they would likely only get a couple of years out of him.
Am I the only one that thinks this is ridiculous? Shouldn’t our focus be on decision making and not your age?
My next point is there has been a slow decline in recent years of the quality of football we are seeing.
Little infringements being let go because we want the game to flow, only for coaches to exploit them – and rightly so.
Coaches are in the business of winning and will do at whatever cost.
The 2018 ‘crackdown’ should never have happened if the referees were officiating correctly from the start of his reign.
They were simply trying to fix a problem he had created. So, if coaches are in the business of winning at whatever cost, why can’t referees be appointed on the basis of decision making?
Especially, if the minimum wage for a referee is $150k per year.
Brian McGee
Guest
Bloody oath cobba. Good yarn
Paul
Roar Guru
Terry, I think the main problem isn't the quality of the decision making, but rather the "instructions" or lack of them that are causing referees to let blatant errors go for the sake of game flow. This year in the NRL, there have been all sorts of messages flying around from Archer, Greenburg and others about what referees are supposed to be doing. No wonder these guys are officiating so badly. When they're given the chance, as happened in the Tests late in the season, they showed they were perfectly capable of making the correct decision nearly all the time. Forward passes and ruck infringements were called but the games still flowed because the ref and his touché judges had control. The NRL has to go back to basics; one bloke's in charge (the ref's boss) and he directs how games will be managed. If Greenburg wants to make changes, he does it through the ref's boss. Issues to with the refs are dealt with through the ref's boss, who does not throw his guys under a bus if they make a questionable decision. Above all, the ref's boss makes sure he has the best available decision makers in charge of games, regardless of their age or sex. If a 45 year old woman can effectively and correctly manage a game, she should get a run as ref in first grade.
Terry Pascoe
Roar Rookie
Exactly! I believe there is too much outside influence in the referee ranks. Let referees focus on refereeing, Coaches coach and Players play.
Nat
Roar Guru
Playing advantage does seem to be lost in a lot of instances these days. I like the idea of the English 'Arm Role' to let people know this is happening. That said, if your 2m offside player gets involved, directly or indirectly, penalise him every day.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Yeah, I mean wasn't the general consensus in 2017 that referees trying to make the game free flowing by relaxing rules in the ruck (eg, sloppy but quick play the balls) lead to teams becoming more dependant on the wrestle to counter that in the first place?
Terry Pascoe
Roar Rookie
There are things that can be let go like, a defensive player standing 2 metres offside but the attack makes 20 metres. Why blow a penalty? Reading a game is essential to a great referee.
Nat
Roar Guru
Exactly right. There has to be an comfortable equilibrium between getting clean rucks (without being pedantic), staying onside and free a flowing game. Respecting the fact they are in the entertainment business but it doesn't attract as many fans as they lose when it is a mess.
Terry Pascoe
Roar Rookie
Yeah, it's hard to decide which way the Nrl are going to go.
Terry Pascoe
Roar Rookie
Thank you kk.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Your point on the crackdown has me concerned the most, especially when they're now announcing a focus on free flowing games. We're gonna be right back at another crackdown sooner then later if clubs are given free reign to do what they want.
kk
Roar Pro
Top class read, Terry. 'This was because he had control, patience and the ability to read the game' A simple and honest expression of the keystone of what is required to adjudicate in the GGoA. A revision of the rule book in conjunction could also be beneficial.