Neutral Refs Please - It's Just Awkward

[Padge]

With only two pro comps in the world it's a bit much expecting a ref who doesn't officiate in either comp to take charge of major Test matches.

 

Have you actually read and understood what I have posted?

[deluded pom?]

Have you actually read and understood what I have posted?

We don't have a panel of refs who are totally at ease with "international" rules and a top flight ref must come from one or other of the comps and they will obviously control the game in a manner that is closest to the one they are most familiar with. There's still nothing to stop us having refs as neutral as we possibly can.

[Padge]

We don't have a panel of refs who are totally at ease with "international" rules and a top flight ref must come from one or other of the comps and they will obviously control the game in a manner that is closest to the one they are most familiar with. There's still nothing to stop us having refs as neutral as we possibly can.

 

And what I said was, because of that situation we are in regarding refs we take the best from each of the two pro comps and one is selected at random before each game to ref it. I also said that the problem isn't just being nationally neutral it is competition neutral. A new Zealand ref earning his crust in the NRL would soon be sent packing if he didn't ref to what the ARL see as their way. Being neutral is about more than nationality.

 

That is until we have a proper program in place to train up refs from other nations, get them working in both hemispheres and operating under international rules. NOw admittedly that would be a long way off, but hey there are people on here who think  Scotland could be winning the World Cup in 10 years if we smile nice towards Glasgow.

[DoubleD]

Talking of bias, here is a clear example of confirmation bias. You've already decided that referees do not need to be neutral so are able to write off a report that you haven't even read with a made up fact.

Thierry Alibert refereed 3 Dragons games between 2006 and 2009.

Don't get me wrong, the report is far from perfect but it certainly makes for interesting reading. For instance the Dragons won 37% of games with an English ref but this went up to 50% if the game was on TV. I would like a follow up and more extensive study.

So if Catalans were only refereed by Alibert 3 times in that period, how is that statistic reliable?

And what is this supposed 'made up fact' that you've suggested I made?

[mt smart]

Ben Matulino said they struggled with the slower play the ball speed that you get with one ref.

He reckoned they will push the boundary to see what they can get away with this time around.

That being the case, its good to hear Kiwi criticism is not pointing the finger at Thaler / the neutrality issue.

They are assuming that an NRL ref won't call it any different in a one Ref scenario.

Personally I'd rather players didn't talk about refs at all....but its all part of the rhetoric.....the psychological warfare in the build up.

[JonM]

Ben Matulino said they struggled with the slower play the ball speed that you get with one ref.

He reckoned they will push the boundary to see what they can get away with this time around.

That being the case, its good to hear Kiwi criticism is not pointing the finger at Thaler / the neutrality issue.

 

Don't really buy that. It's pretty easy to measure ptb speed from a video.

 

Kearney made the same complaint about a single ref and slower play-the-ball speed about Silverwood back in 2008. A week or so later, GB coach Tony Smith complained that NRL refs were slowing the ptb down compared to SL.

[mt smart]

Don't really buy that. It's pretty easy to measure ptb speed from a video.

Kearney made the same complaint about a single ref and slower play-the-ball speed about Silverwood back in 2008. A week or so later, GB coach Tony Smith complained that NRL refs were slowing the ptb down compared to SL.

I don't buy it either in this case...sounds like a bit of coaching one upmanship in what you mentioned.I recon the play the balls followed a typical pattern....they were ultra fast for both sides at the start.

As England gained ascendency in the contact...their dominant tackles were afforded the extra fraction of a second that dominant teams are entitled.

I think the Kiwis need to focus on dominating the contact rather than testing the limits....thereby they are likely to enjoy an extra second or two on top that a Ref will afford the dominant team that commits numbers in the tackle and has the tackled play rolled onto thier back.

The game slowed as far as the ptbs goe as part of the natural attrition you see under any Ref making allowances for tiring/slowing sides.The important thing being that it applied fairly and equally under Thaler to both sides.

All subjective but that's how I see the game when I watch it....fast at the start, slows ....until five minutes either side of half time....geared around coaching interchanges.

Clearly what the Kiwis are hoping for, is a faster play the ball.... period.

If you look at how heavily invested in a forward game the kiwis are....they have little or nothing to offer from their halves.....they have to try to influence Reffing through the ptb....that opening thirty minutes was during that fast ptb period that exists (anecdotally) in my mind in all high intensity matches.

[flyingking]

The RLIF strategic plan states they are going to work towards developing neutral refs and one set of laws.

http://www.rlif.com/~media/docs/RLIF-Strategic%20Plan%202015-2025%2018pp%20(Digital).pdf

[bobbruce]

The RLIF strategic plan states they are going to work towards developing neutral refs and one set of laws.

http://www.rlif.com/~media/docs/RLIF-Strategic%20Plan%202015-2025%2018pp%20(Digital).pdf

Hallelujah

[Futtocks]

The RLIF strategic plan states they are going to work towards developing neutral refs and one set of laws.

http://www.rlif.com/~media/docs/RLIF-Strategic%20Plan%202015-2025%2018pp%20(Digital).pdf

Have they told the Australians yet? I can see some very strongly-worded objections coming from Sydney... 

[Pyjamarama]

The RLIF strategic plan states they are going to work towards developing neutral refs and one set of laws.

http://www.rlif.com/~media/docs/RLIF-Strategic%20Plan%202015-2025%2018pp%20(Digital).pdf

 

Great news. Very positive. I just hope that the words are turned into actions.  

[Maximus Decimus]

So if Catalans were only refereed by Alibert 3 times in that period, how is that statistic reliable?

And what is this supposed 'made up fact' that you've suggested I made?

The made up fact that Alibert always refereed them in France.

If you trust the rugby league project then you can find the statistics yourself. Why don't you read the actual study? It's not hard to find.

As I said the study isn't perfect but there have been other studies into referee bias that concluce that social approval and social sanctions can have effects on decision making. Also, there is the well known phenomena of home crowd influence on referees.

I don't say this to denigrate any of the individual referees but some would like us to believe that they can be virtually bias free because they are professional. These studies indicate that far from being robots they are subject to a variety of biases as we all are. IMO a hometown referee is much more likely than almost any other situation to be subject to these influences.

Edit: I realised I misread your first line. The study compared British referees with Australian and French combined. This is largely Ashley Klein but a couple of others such as Steve Price. It doesn't just look at win percentage either, it looks at penalties and cards for both French and British clubs.

[Padge]

Have they told the Australians yet? I can see some very strongly-worded objections coming from Sydney... 

 

They won't object at all, as long it is their version and nobody else has a say.

[Padge]

The made up fact that Alibert always refereed them in France.

If you trust the rugby league project then you can find the statistics yourself. Why don't you read the actual study? It's not hard to find.

As I said the study isn't perfect but there have been other studies into referee bias that concluce that social approval and social sanctions can have effects on decision making. Also, there is the well known phenomena of home crowd influence on referees.

I don't say this to denigrate any of the individual referees but some would like us to believe that they can be virtually bias free because they are professional. These studies indicate that far from being robots they are subject to a variety of biases as we all are. IMO a hometown referee is much more likely than almost any other situation to be subject to these influences.

Edit: I realised I misread your first line. The study compared British referees with Australian and French combined. This is largely Ashley Klein but a couple of others such as Steve Price. It doesn't just look at win percentage either, it looks at penalties and cards for both French and British clubs.

 

The home crowd barracking would apply to any ref from anywhere so becomes neutral.

 

Care to post the links to all this stuff you are quoting so we can read it in context.

[JonM]

The home crowd barracking would apply to any ref from anywhere so becomes neutral.

 

Care to post the links to all this stuff you are quoting so we can read it in context.

 

I assume max dec is referrring to this:

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241766422_Evidence_of_referees'_national_favouritism_in_rugby (but you'd need a researchgate subscription to read the paper)

 

summary here:

 

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/07/29/revealed-biased-rugby-referees-in-both-codes-hand-big-advantage-to-own-countries-290702/

[Maximus Decimus]

The home crowd barracking would apply to any ref from anywhere so becomes neutral.

Care to post the links to all this stuff you are quoting so we can read it in context.

The point about the home crowd barracking was to prove that referees are not robots; if they are professionals who make impartial decisions free from bias then this shouldn't be the case. It follows that if home crowd barracking can affect decision making then home town bias (either way) can as well. I read a study yesterday into referees and stoppage time at the end of the game. If the home team was a goal behind then the referee would allocate significantly more stoppage time than if the away team was a goal behind. In Spain it was 102 seconds!

You can get the rugby study for free from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qut/auncer/2010_09.html.

It'd been a while since I'd read it and in the review of literature it mentions a number of studies showing bias from non-neutral judges in sports such as diving and gymnastics.

I think most of us are actually on the same page. We accept that in RL sometimes we have to have non-neutral referees but that if we could we would have neutral referees. I'm only arguing against those who almost think it is offensive to question that a referee could show bias.

In RL we have a clear case of the problem of non-neutral referees in big international games. That is Steve Ganson's sending off of Adrian Morley after 12 seconds. I think most of us suspect that he wouldn't have sent off an Australian player in the same circumstance but that if he had it would have caused an uproar and led to huge calls of bias from the Australians. A neutral referee could've made the decision with a much clearer head.

[bobbruce]

The point about the home crowd barracking was to prove that referees are not robots; if they are professionals who make impartial decisions free from bias then this shouldn't be the case. It follows that if home crowd barracking can affect decision making then home town bias (either way) can as well. I read a study yesterday into referees and stoppage time at the end of the game. If the home team was a goal behind then the referee would allocate significantly more stoppage time than if the away team was a goal behind. In Spain it was 102 seconds!

You can get the rugby study for free from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qut/auncer/2010_09.html.

It'd been a while since I'd read it and in the review of literature it mentions a number of studies showing bias from non-neutral judges in sports such as diving and gymnastics.

I think most of us are actually on the same page. We accept that in RL sometimes we have to have non-neutral referees but that if we could we would have neutral referees. I'm only arguing against those who almost think it is offensive to question that a referee could show bias.

In RL we have a clear case of the problem of non-neutral referees in big international games. That is Steve Ganson's sending off of Adrian Morley after 12 seconds. I think most of us suspect that he wouldn't have sent off an Australian player in the same circumstance but that if he had it would have caused an uproar and led to huge calls of bias from the Australians. A neutral referee could've made the decision with a much clearer head.

I'm sure there is some bias there but I think it's pretty minimal. What I would say is given the choice any of the teams involved would pick a ref from the country they are playing against provided he was reffing in there comp. There's no doubt that the competition they are reffing in is a bigger factor than where they're from.

[Farmduck]

I'm sure there is some bias there but I think it's pretty minimal. What I would say is given the choice any of the teams involved would pick a ref from the country they are playing against provided he was reffing in there comp. There's no doubt that the competition they are reffing in is a bigger factor than where they're from.

 

I recall Shane Rehm being used as the NZ ref in the 2010 4N. The reason AUS players didn't want him was that he'd never reffed an NRL game - still hasn't AFAIK. From a ref's point of view I would have questioned Rehm being given an international when he was only reffing 20s matches.

 

Refs have their own career paths, based on years of progression from kids through various senior grades to Tests. Incompetence can have just as big effect on the outcome of a big game as perceived bias does.

[Maximus Decimus]

I'm sure there is some bias there but I think it's pretty minimal. What I would say is given the choice any of the teams involved would pick a ref from the country they are playing against provided he was reffing in there comp. There's no doubt that the competition they are reffing in is a bigger factor than where they're from.

I agree that the bizarre situation of two competitions having different rules is absurd and has great potential for influence over the game. In some ways I think this can lead to a heightening of the non-neutral bias. British refs and Australian refs often seem determined to prove a point about the way the game is reffed.

I don't agree that the impact is minimal. I'd be interested to hear whether you think Ganson would've sent off an Australian after 12 seconds. If like me, you think he'd have given a yellow, then this potentially had a huge factor on the game and the series.

I was interested in the study about how it spoke of social pressure and social sanctions and their effect being greater than money. I don't think any of our referees want to unduly influence the game so that their country will win. Maybe it happened in the past but it doesn't now I'm sure. However, anybody involved with the British game cannot be unaware of the huge impact a defeat of the Aussies would have on the game. Subconsciously has great potential to influence who the referee favours. i think the 2003 series saw British referees giving a couple of more than generous video ref decisions. I don't however think the Australian video ref was ever going to give the Hall try last year. This potentially could've been influenced by the social sanctions that would've occured had he given it.

[Steve Fox]

"I read a study yesterday into referees and stoppage time at the end of the game. If the home team was a goal behind then the referee would allocate significantly more stoppage time than if the away team was a goal behind. In Spain it was 102 seconds!"

That's will be because away teams are more likely to indulge in time-wasting tactics. As often in these cases, what looks like a damning piece of evidence is actually explained by other factors.

[Maximus Decimus]

"I read a study yesterday into referees and stoppage time at the end of the game. If the home team was a goal behind then the referee would allocate significantly more stoppage time than if the away team was a goal behind. In Spain it was 102 seconds!"

That's will be because away teams are more likely to indulge in time-wasting tactics. As often in these cases, what looks like a damning piece of evidence is actually explained by other factors.

Giving a potential reason isn't the same as explaining it away. You have claimed that they are more likely to waste time, is this from a study as well?

These studies were from the days when referees had complete control over injury time so it was far from a precise judgement based on how much teams had been time wasting.

Edit: I am obviously paraphrasing more complete studies. The referee bias in football games also found a clear difference between referee's opinions of decisions depending on whether they left the crowd noise on the tv or not.

[Padge]

The point about the home crowd barracking was to prove that referees are not robots; if they are professionals who make impartial decisions free from bias then this shouldn't be the case. It follows that if home crowd barracking can affect decision making then home town bias (either way) can as well. I read a study yesterday into referees and stoppage time at the end of the game. If the home team was a goal behind then the referee would allocate significantly more stoppage time than if the away team was a goal behind. In Spain it was 102 seconds!

You can get the rugby study for free from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qut/auncer/2010_09.html.

It'd been a while since I'd read it and in the review of literature it mentions a number of studies showing bias from non-neutral judges in sports such as diving and gymnastics.

I think most of us are actually on the same page. We accept that in RL sometimes we have to have non-neutral referees but that if we could we would have neutral referees. I'm only arguing against those who almost think it is offensive to question that a referee could show bias.

In RL we have a clear case of the problem of non-neutral referees in big international games. That is Steve Ganson's sending off of Adrian Morley after 12 seconds. I think most of us suspect that he wouldn't have sent off an Australian player in the same circumstance but that if he had it would have caused an uproar and led to huge calls of bias from the Australians. A neutral referee could've made the decision with a much clearer head.

 

Ta.

[mt smart]

Sutton blew plenty of penalties for both sides, I didn't agree with bunch of those that were for the kiwis slowing the ruck down....but I recon both sides got thier fair share of those calls.

The James Graham knock on (the attempted grounding of a try) was wrong....but that was an Englishman in the Video refs box cocking that up ( Sutton had called Try and intimated it might even be penalty Try tertory off some phantom interference He claimed to have seen).

Sutton also let one of the English players get away with blatant interfering in the play the ball when the guy raked it back with his foot right in front of him.

.Neutral incompetence is better than a perception of bias.

[Maximus Decimus]

Sutton blew plenty of penalties for both sides, I didn't agree with bunch of those that were for the kiwis slowing the ruck down....but I recon both sides got thier fair share of those calls.

The James Graham knock on (the attempted grounding of a try) was wrong....but that was an Englishman in the Video refs box cocking that up ( Sutton had called Try and intimated it might even be penalty Try tertory off some phantom interference He claimed to have seen).

Sutton also let one of the English players get away with blatant interfering in the play the ball when the guy raked it back with his foot right in front of him.

.Neutral incompetence is better than a perception of bias.

This every day. I didn't like how he refffed the game, I prefer refs that let it flow but there was no real argument that he favoured either side.

If he'd been a Kiwi I'm sure we'd have plenty who'd have watched the game thinking he was favouring the kiwis.

[John Fisher]

The problem is, as I see it, is that with a three nation International game there will always be a problem finding a "neutral" referee. Any game involving England v. either Australia or New Zealand will have a referee from the other of those two countries. This means refereeing to NRL standards as opposed to Super League standards, and will always put England (or GB for that matter) on the back foot. Why different interpretations of the laws of the game in the two hemispheres has been allowed to happen is beyond me.