Is the two ref system about to die?

[Nashy]

THE NRL's controversial two-referee system is in tatters after dramatic revelations that one referee will take complete charge of at least five games this weekend.

The Courier-Mail learnt of the amazing development last night - even before NRL coaches had been told.

Asked about the one-referee move, NRL referees' coach Robert Finch said: "Who told you that?"

Want more rugby league?
Keep informed: Get your print edition of The Courier-Mail
But sources revealed that senior referees will be appointed dominant referee for the entire 80 minutes in five games, with junior referees playing substantially reduced roles.


Related Coverage
Lack of depth: Attitude stifles NRL referee quality
In pictures:: NRL round 6 action

Two games with two senior referees appointed will operate under the shared two-referee system that has been utilised in the first six rounds.

Because coaches are only being told of the development today - and round 7 starts tomorrow - there could be heavy confusion as players are left unsure about the referees' new roles.

The move from Finch questions whether the two-referee system has a future in the NRL.

If there is to be one dominant referee in some matches, many will argue the game should consider reverting to only one referee on the field.

The shared two-referee system is likely to operate in the Canterbury v Brisbane, North Queensland v Parramatta and Souths v Canberra games.

The one dominant referee role is likely to be implemented in the following games: Penrith v Wests Tigers, Cronulla v Newcastle, St George Illawarra v Sydney Roosters, Melbourne v NZ Warriors and Manly v Gold Coast.

The Courier Mail has been told some less experienced referees are angry at the move, which downplays their role in games.

The move comes after a horror start to the season for referees, who have made fundamental mistakes and frustrated players, fans and commentators with their rule interpretations.

Finch was reluctant to discuss the issue last night, but did say: "We are looking at finetuning the two-referee system all the time.

Get rid of it for mine. They are no better with two refs.

 

[Jeba]

Why would they have the 2 ref system for some games and not for others????

I agree with Nashy, get rid of the 2 ref's, it's not working at all.

 

[Dexter]

The Courier Mail has been told some less experienced referees are angry at the move, which downplays their role in games.

Get rid of it for mine. They are no better with two refs.

And there is the main problem, refs with egos and refs trying to be the stand out adjudicator FFS.

If they just reffed and were capable of overlooking things which have no bearing on the play they would be noticed anyway.

 

[gUt]

I was thinking on the weekend that no one has been talking about the 2 refs thing so far this season, so it must be working.

I don't have a problem with the 2 refs thing but I think Robert Finch has to go. Something is up where these refs continually crack under pressure. Put Bill Harrigan or Greg McCallum in charge - you know, someone who has reffed a bit - and get it sorted.

Because I for one am sick of a) constant shite decisions and b) whinging about constant shite decisions.

 

[Coxy]

The problem with the refereeing mistakes this season is nothing to do with the 2 referees. It's the constant attempts by Finch to make rules black and white and taking common sense out of the equation. As Dexter said, there's too many penalties for things that have no impact on the play.

The new advantage interpretation was a joke, implying that you only got an advantage if you ran 10m past the point of the error. The obstruction interpretation is all wrong.

I don't actually think referees have made too many actual mistakes. They've simply done what they're coached to do...it's that coaching that is totally wrong.

Finch must go.

 

[Je$ter]

Quick question regarding advantage rule. Ok so what happens if you go through a whole set of 6 and you don't make 10 metres? Are they seriously going to call it back?

I thought it would be on the first play? Surely you can't call it back if you knock on the 5th tackle if you dont' make 10m.

And I agree with Coxy that there is little to no common sense about using the rules.

 

[Coxy]

Quick question regarding advantage rule. Ok so what happens if you go through a whole set of 6 and you don't make 10 metres? Are they seriously going to call it back?

LOLZ, it applies to that one play.

If you get tackled then it's play on.
If you get tackled before the point of the knock on it should be no advantage and scrum.

 

[Fozz]

Whole thing should be scrapped. I thought it was promising but it hasn't fixed any problems or improved the quality of refereeing so it's been a failed experiment.

 

[Coxy]

I don't actually mind if they go with what they're doing for 5 games: senior referee is in charge. Junior ref is there to assist.

 

[Coxy]

[quote="The Rock":1hk5i8q2]Quick question regarding advantage rule. Ok so what happens if you go through a whole set of 6 and you don't make 10 metres? Are they seriously going to call it back?

LOLZ, it applies to that one play.

If you get tackled then it's play on.
If you get tackled before the point of the knock on it should be no advantage and scrum.

lolz, fair enough. But even still, if you throw the ball around then make 9 metres then drop it, it's no advantage? Um 9 metres is a pretty big advantage in itself, your front row forwards will average around 8 metres per hit up, so making 9 metres IS an advantage. If they want to make that rule black and white then make it a 5 metre advantage![/quote:1hk5i8q2]

Don't put a metre factor on it at all! It's common sense. If the non-mistake team has managed to gain possession, run a bit, pass, kick, whatever, as long as they progressed past the point of the initial error then it should be play on, advantage taken. That's how the rule has worked as long as I've lived and that's how it should continue to work.

 

[Coxy]

Nah, the answer is the notion of making black and white interpretations for advantage, play the ball infringements, obstruction etc. They do and will always have an element of grey that has to be interpreted with common sense.

Finch must go. Bring in a former ref to take his spot and throw out all this KPI, black and white garbage and coach the referees to use common sense.

 

[Anonymous person]

lol at anyone suggesting Bill Harrigan being the new referees boss. that idiot was so out of touch with the game, thought he was above it, and ruined many a match purely to get his face in the spotlight. even to this day he still makes idiotic video referee decisions.

as for the 'advantage' rule, IMO it should be as soon as you get the ball past the point where the other team knocked on and passed/kicked the ball, thats an advantage.

 

[Meat77]

Bring back Greg Hartley!

 

[Flutterby]

Exactly it is Finch that is the problem with the refereeing. In every sport there are 'grey areas' within rules and the referees should be allowed to use their common sense and judgement in adjudicating these instances with regards to the flow of the game, the impact of the decision etc. Refs have largely become robots with no feel for the game as they are constrained to black and white implementation of the rules. (The obstruction rule is another one along with the advantage rule, but I don't want to get started on that again) I agree a former referee with a real feel for the game should replace Finch ASAP.

 

[Coxy]

Bingo.

I've heard referees on more than one occasion say to players "I'm sorry, but that's just how the rule is, I have no choice"...indicating they can see it's stupid.

 

[ethos]

Pretty sure that I read something this week about Finch changing the knock on/advantage rule. Ah, here's it is..

Finch yesterday announced that referees would now use their own discretion to decide whether play should continue or be restarted.

He had proposed the change, which requires the team gaining possession to advance play 10 metres or to start the tackle count again from the place the ball had been dropped, in a bid to encourage more adventurous play. But he conceded yesterday it was not working and would be scrapped.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...refs-demoted-rule-scrapped-20100420-sruk.html

 

[forward_pass]

If we didn't have the zero tackle then I'd be happy with the current advantage rule, but since we do, there's no need for the 10m advantage line - other team gets the ball back, done and done.

 

[Browny]

Anyone read Finch's interview about the Parra v Souths game. Talk about blaming the players and couches for the reffing stuff ups.