10 replies to this topic

[thirteenthman]

Putting aside the OTT reaction to last night's game elsewhere on the forum, it does raise the question of the actual rule whereby referees can put players on report.

According to the Rothmans Yearbook 95/96, the rule was introduced on March 1st 1994. It enabled a referee who was uncertain about possible foul play to report the incident to the RFL, who would then study the video to determine whether to refer the player to the disciplinary committee.

Is this still the case, because it does appear that referees now use it as a way of avoiding making a decision, thereby avoiding any accusations of 'spoiling the game' by sending a man off. With a referee, 2 touch judges and a video referee at last night's game, Mr Ganson still put the Ablett/Tomkins incident on report. He even said to Carl Ablett something like 'You're in enough trouble', suggesting that he saw what went on.

The biggest problem is that the team on the receiving end of the foul play don't gain any benefit from any subsequent ban given out to the player. Perhaps the offending player put on report should be sent to the sin-bin for 10 minutes. Or maybe, any subsequent ban on the player should include a match against the same team. E.g. Carl Ablett gets a 3 match ban, so 1 of those games should be next time he plays against Wigan, regradless of which club he happens to be playing for.

You could argue that the rule should be taken out of the game, so referees are forced to make a decison on the spot. If the ref misses anything (shurely not?) the incident could be reported by a video ref or off field official after the game and looked at by the RFL.

Of course, whatever you do to the rules, you can't legislate for a sub-standard refereeing display. That's one thing that'll never change.

[GazCoops]

There is no need for the report rule nowadays now that incidents can be sighted after the game, if the rule was not there it would force refs to make a decision instead of avoiding the situation.

[Dave T]

It's a strange one this rule.

I think it now serves a different purpose than when it was introduced.

I think it is purely there to send a message to players and fans that the offence was more serious than a standard penalty, but the ref doesn't want to send him off. Bearing in mind the fact that the games are reviewed anyway, and all sorts of incidents pulled out, there is no other reason to cross your hands above your head other than to send a signal to the fans.

[giwildgo]

It's a strange one this rule.

I think it now serves a different purpose than when it was introduced.

I think it is purely there to send a message to players and fans that the offence was more serious than a standard penalty, but the ref doesn't want to send him off. Bearing in mind the fact that the games are reviewed anyway, and all sorts of incidents pulled out, there is no other reason to cross your hands above your head other than to send a signal to the fans.

I was thinking that there needs to be some halfway house for foul play - the on-report is seen as a cop out for the officials, I'd like to see it taken away and the sin bin used, as that actually has some punishment within the confines of the game where the offence occurred. Such a system would have been fairer and worked better last night - assuming the officials didn't see either the Ablett or Bailey incidents enough to consider a send off, Wigan would still have derived some benefit and the incidents could then be considered for further action at the disciplinary. I know some would argue that it would result in nothing incidents getting players binned - but I would counter that officials still get things wrong in this regard - see Coley's sin binning last night as evidence.

[Dave T]

I was thinking that there needs to be some halfway house for foul play - the on-report is seen as a cop out for the officials, I'd like to see it taken away and the sin bin used, as that actually has some punishment within the confines of the game where the offence occurred. Such a system would have been fairer and worked better last night - assuming the officials didn't see either the Ablett or Bailey incidents enough to consider a send off, Wigan would still have derived some benefit and the incidents could then be considered for further action at the disciplinary. I know some would argue that it would result in nothing incidents getting players binned - but I would counter that officials still get things wrong in this regard - see Coley's sin binning last night as evidence.

Yep, I would be happy for them to go back to the sin-bin for foul play rule, which has changed now. In effect I see the on-report as a public warning or booking.

[sam]

it's not needed now.

[Padge]

I think it serves a purpose, as said earlier, in that it indicates to fans that the referee is highlighting the incident and it will be in his match report. Technically it offers little but as a communication tool it offers a lot.

Sin binning is still possible for foul play, hence Coley was sat on his ###### for ten minutes for savegely beating up Burrow ten minutes after the ball had gone.

[Dave T]

I think it serves a purpose, as said earlier, in that it indicates to fans that the referee is highlighting the incident and it will be in his match report. Technically it offers little but as a communication tool it offers a lot.

Sin binning is still possible for foul play, hence Coley was sat on his ###### for ten minutes for savegely beating up Burrow ten minutes after the ball had gone.

Yep, a communication tool is all it is, and tbh if they clarify that is what it is rather than this 'the ref hasn't seen it' thing then people may take to it a bit more.

In terms of sin-binning for foul play, they are still technicaly fouls really. Coley was sin-binned for persistant foul play from Wigan (taking away the fact that there was actually nothing wrong with Coley's tackle!). You can also get binned for late hits. Other than that, normal foul play isn't really covered by the sin-bin. Certainly a one-off high tackle will not get this punishment.

[ckn]

I agree that it's no longer needed. If the ref saw it then he should deal with it, if he didn't then leave it to a citing officer. The "on report" thing allows refs to back away from controversial, but correct, decisions and often keeps 13 men on the field for a side when they really don't deserve it.

[jackknife]

for me you should be able to hand it to the video ref where he can then decide penalty, sin bin or red then get on with the game simples

[amh]

for me you should be able to hand it to the video ref where he can then decide penalty, sin bin or red then get on with the game simples

I think I agree....if there's a VR at the game, use them for these decisions as well

No VR - on report

Both can still be reviewed as per norm

edit
I only said I think...I have now re-thought and think differently
this may/may not have coincided with a certain person reading this thread

Edited by amh, 31 July 2010 - 01:31 PM.