Sirlee oldman
NRL Player
- Dec 6, 2015
- 1,623
- 2,228
Just for a change from bashing our players I thought we could have a go at the officials instead. Their poor performance is the biggest problem facing the game today. It's unacceptable that people whose job is to ensure a fair contest should so often unfairly influence the result.
I would like to think that they aren't actually biased or corrupt and simply saying they are incompetent isn't very helpful so where are they going wrong. To me it seems to boil down to two major systemic problems.
1. They don't make the best use of the resources they have.
2. They are over complicating the rules.
The incident where Roberts kicked the player on the ground really highlights the first point. A lot was said about the inability of the bunker to go back to that point and that is certainly worth discussing but there's more to it than that. Roberts was very clumsily trying to draw attention to the player and get a penalty but it was never going to work because the referees weren't watching the ruck. So what were they looking at?
There were also many times when the ball was lost by the player getting up to play the ball. Sometimes they dropped it and sometimes it was raked but on many occasions the referee simply got the call wrong. It's as though they weren't really focused on the ruck. The only thing I can think of that they might have been looking at is whether the teams are on side. Anyone who goes to games knows that teams creep up off side a lot too without getting penalised so it seems obvious that referees are looking at the wrong place at the wrong time.
A simple solution would be to use the touch judges to police the off side rule and incidents in back play and let the referees focus on the ruck. At the moment touch judges only real job seems to be indicating where a ball crosses the line. Even when someone steps on the line the bunker checks it. Give them something real to do!
The second point was really highlighted by the ridiculous call in the Origin game when the player was deemed to be inside the ten but passive. Any player running through is a distraction for the defence and therefore not passive but the real question is why change the rule? What was wrong with the way it was?
Shoulder charges were another bone of contention this year. We all know a shoulder charge when we see one so why do they need to measure the angle of separation of the arm? Either the guy was trying to make a legitimate tackle or he wasn't.
The cause of these attempts to define things to such a silly degree is that when a player is cited the league knows they will bring a barrister to the hearing. If a normal person gets called into the bosses office after a stuff up at work they don't take a barrister and nor should footballers. If they were banned we would never again have decisions like the one earlier this year when Oates was knocked rotten by a Warriors player who then got off because a barrister convinced the judiciary that because it was a two man tackle his client couldn't put his arms around him.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
I would like to think that they aren't actually biased or corrupt and simply saying they are incompetent isn't very helpful so where are they going wrong. To me it seems to boil down to two major systemic problems.
1. They don't make the best use of the resources they have.
2. They are over complicating the rules.
The incident where Roberts kicked the player on the ground really highlights the first point. A lot was said about the inability of the bunker to go back to that point and that is certainly worth discussing but there's more to it than that. Roberts was very clumsily trying to draw attention to the player and get a penalty but it was never going to work because the referees weren't watching the ruck. So what were they looking at?
There were also many times when the ball was lost by the player getting up to play the ball. Sometimes they dropped it and sometimes it was raked but on many occasions the referee simply got the call wrong. It's as though they weren't really focused on the ruck. The only thing I can think of that they might have been looking at is whether the teams are on side. Anyone who goes to games knows that teams creep up off side a lot too without getting penalised so it seems obvious that referees are looking at the wrong place at the wrong time.
A simple solution would be to use the touch judges to police the off side rule and incidents in back play and let the referees focus on the ruck. At the moment touch judges only real job seems to be indicating where a ball crosses the line. Even when someone steps on the line the bunker checks it. Give them something real to do!
The second point was really highlighted by the ridiculous call in the Origin game when the player was deemed to be inside the ten but passive. Any player running through is a distraction for the defence and therefore not passive but the real question is why change the rule? What was wrong with the way it was?
Shoulder charges were another bone of contention this year. We all know a shoulder charge when we see one so why do they need to measure the angle of separation of the arm? Either the guy was trying to make a legitimate tackle or he wasn't.
The cause of these attempts to define things to such a silly degree is that when a player is cited the league knows they will bring a barrister to the hearing. If a normal person gets called into the bosses office after a stuff up at work they don't take a barrister and nor should footballers. If they were banned we would never again have decisions like the one earlier this year when Oates was knocked rotten by a Warriors player who then got off because a barrister convinced the judiciary that because it was a two man tackle his client couldn't put his arms around him.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
