We must ease up on the refs

Annesley ,like all good PR people makes a lovely motherhood statement lamenting the state of affairs, but not offering or admitting to being part of the solution .I see a pattern in his Pressers -sympathy for the victims,but no remedy

Some people also believe in the tooth fairy.I think you’d make a good referee

Paul I am not a real viewer of Rugby but I agree with you that the Rugby players accept the Referee's decision with only the Captains talking to the Referee. My take on the difference between the codes on this subject really is that Rugby League Commentators on TV & Radio plus the so-called Journos & Experts very rarely accept a Referee's decision without replaying on multiple occasions & dissecting it again & again (Rugby commentators seem to accept refereeing decisions without too much fuss). I blame mainly ex-players who commentate & set themselves up as experts on the game as it is played today not in their time which could be 15 to 20 years & more ago. The game today is played by players who are in most cases extremely fit & much faster than even 5-7 years ago. One case that annoys me is that last week I witnessed a Captains Challenge on a ball strip where 3 players were holding a player up & the ball came loose & was ruled as a "loose carry". Lets analyse the situation, the commentator (ex player) had not played for at least 15 years agreed whole heartily with the decision & probably had not found himself in a situation where 3 forwards weighing at least 105 Kilos each were holding him & one had his hand on the ball & arms & wrestling with the other 2 players. We have Channel 9 & Fox really competing for viewers & they have to be controversial & their views on Referees' seem to resonate with viewers & players. One Coach tells his players "don't read the papers or watch TV. Good advise really.

You are correct. I read the rules and you are most certainly correct. All of us watching the game thought it was a fair penalty, but in the scheme of things it was not. Although perhaps they're "out" will be that the foul play resulted in an unacceptable play the ball. Which in itself can be a penalty

And thank you sir. Why reward the impeder by giving him what he wants , the prevention of the try? They'll soon stop if they get harsher on the practice.

Adam, the NRLs own guidelines are that it can turn to a penalty if there are excessive ruck infringements,( and there wasn’t) or if deemed a professional foul in which case the player will be immediately sent to the sin bin (not a professional foul and no sin bin). They forgot the rule and it’s set a horrible precedent when guess what .. (next time it’s going to be 6 again and we will ask why the favour for Melbourne in Round 7

DCE speaks really to referees and should be commended. He'll one day become the new Cam Smith. Zero tolerance is definitely the way to go. Start with penalties and quickly escalate to marching extra yards then to 10mins rests and if necessary send offs. The one that annoys me most is the players racing at the referee when a try is scored. Horrible look

Probably true. But it might be considered a professional foul i that circumstance so can be a penalty

Thankyou! I agree com pl letely about penalty tries. If a player is impeded illegally in the act of scoring a try it should be a penalty try! This idea of certainty is bunkum

You ever wondered why people don't engage you on this site? Obnoxious and arrogant and so full of yourself it's painful. Any reasonable discourse with you is pointless. You hate anyone who disagrees. Humility. Look it up. While you're at it, check the penalty try rule.

You corrected me by saying that this was part of the rule. ''The referee must be absolutely certain the try would have been scored if not for the foul play'' WRONG! He doesn't need to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. Nobody knows the player won't drop the ball with nobody near him. You've never seen that happen I guess? Try and understand what absolute certainty actually means and don't argue until you do. Courts send people to jail with a beyond reasonable doubt ruling. Neither that or the refs OPINION can be translated to mean ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Once again I will state you are wrong. It doesn't say that , mean that ,imply that or say that at all. The last commentator who spoke like you on the issue that I can recall was Peter Sterling and when someone corrected him he accepted it because he had no choice, he was wrong. You have no choice either. Don't bother lecturing me on the rules when you argue against me with a rule you have made up. I'm not commenting on your typo or mine. I haven't a clue what you are talking about in that third paragraph anyway. Your first version of the rule is incorrect, the strange second version is impossible to understand. The only thing that is correct is the rule you googled and it's not news to me , I've googled it before. Don't bother lecturing me on how I post. You are the one telling me I was wrong and then made up completely incorrect rules to prove your case. Why didn't you just state the proper rules in the first place? Because you were so certain you were correcting me anyway. Do some research next time before you rudely reply. I could explain to you how a penalty try isn't a garuanteed 6 points but as you have stated as well but I can't be bothered , it's too difficult somehow.

Take a pill and re-read the posts, Mr Knowitall. You made a critical typo too. I corrected mine without being told. I'd suggest you wouldn't be told anything by anyone. Like I said, easy to admire. Impossible to like. It's not being wrong that's your only problem. It's the obnoxious way you express it and your disdain for others. Go read the rules yourself. Come back when you know how wrong you are and can express so with some decency.

My god I've seen it all now. You have possibly authored the most incorrect post I have ever seen and that is a massive achievement. You either missed the word OPINION in the rules or you saw it and completely ignored it. You state the rule is clear and unambiguous and the ref must be absolutely certain that the try would be scored. That isn't the rule , it doesn't exist. You have made it up and you don't even understand what the real rule means. Keep posting , you are the most amusing out of the lot.

Still haven't shared with us your thoughts on AFB being a wife beater by the way? A convicted one at that.

My bad, I meant "belief" rather than "opinion" in the third paragraph. You aren't the only one who makes typos that confuse meaning I guess.

It's actually funny to see someone so incorrect so strong willed about it. Easy to admire but difficult to convince they're off base. The rule states: ‘The Referee (or Review Officials) may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team.’ Please note the words "MAY award a try" and "a try WOULD have been scored". The discretion is the Referee awarding the try, not whether it would have been scored or not. That's not opinion. It WOULD have been scored but for the illegal play. You used the term "believe". It's way tighter than that. As for no try being absolutely certain until after the event, that doesn't even make sense. I'm not certain you exist but these posts keep popping up, so I'll take it that you do. That's certain enough for me.

Nah, I didn't know you were in your 60's old bloke mark 2 (well done) but just so you know, I'm not far behind you and have a lot of experience as well. I do respect your six decades but you just sounded too young not to believe in the link between discipline and the times. You've seen it too I'm sure. And like the dark side of the moon, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I've refereed dozens of female senior League games and they give as good as the blokes do to the ref, that's a fact, sorry to tell you. I'm not gonna bite into the elitist Union argument (and you didn't make it clear in your first post about that) but I know for a fact that they have their abuse problems too. Typed in Rugby Referee Abuse into Google and 30,000 results came up in .25 seconds. Pretending Union doesn't have referee abuse is bigoted, not factual, and makes you sound REAL old.

I've applauded Annesley in recent years for coming out and admitting when errors have been made , the previous alternative in denying refs influence the result was embarrassing . Anyone can see they do. I don't agree with the fence straddling here though by him. He appears to be saying to the players , if Maxwell is in the bunker you can get away with a push in the back if you are concerned that a try is possible. He needed to say the correct call was a penalty.

I meant to say ''Illegally impedes''. Your opinion that it's fine as it stands is valid of course but like many commentators you have got it wrong. The ref just has to believe a try would be scored in his opinion. They would never award a penalty try if absolute certainty was the criteria. No try is absolutely certain until after the event. Apart from that they have altered the wheel anyway by awarding heaps more penalty tries in recent years.

Really? I guess according to you, 6 decades on planet earth has taught me nothing. I notice you completely ignored my point about Rugby players not abusing refs so I'll throw another question at you? Why don't women do exactly the same thing at elite level as AFB has done. Their living with the times aren't they? They're passionate about their sport, aren't they? If you don’t see that you probably haven’t been around long enough.