2 Refs in SL for 2019.

[Lowdesert]

The LRL website.  

“Two referees in Super League in 2019

Super League are set to follow in the steps of the NRL and have two referees on-field next from 2019 and beyond.

The main referee will control the play from within the 10-metre zone and the other will monitor the play-the-ball, with the aim of introducing another referee to speed up the ruck and make the game more exciting. It is expected that it will be trialled for next season and then a decision will be made to see whether it stays at the end of 2019.”

[Oliver Clothesoff]

A couple of points:

1. We have about six full-time referees at present.

2. Do we have enough referees of a sufficient quality to make this work?

[bobbruce]

9 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

The LRL website.  

“Two referees in Super League in 2019

Super League are set to follow in the steps of the NRL and have two referees on-field next from 2019 and beyond.

The main referee will control the play from within the 10-metre zone and the other will monitor the play-the-ball, with the aim of introducing another referee to speed up the ruck and make the game more exciting. It is expected that it will be trialled for next season and then a decision will be made to see whether it stays at the end of 2019.”

What worries me is the purpose of the second ref in the NRL is to tidy up the ptb not speed it up. There are plenty of occasions when the second ref stops play and makes the attacker ptb from the right spot. 

[Southerner80]

3 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

A couple of points:

1. We have about six full-time referees at present.

2. Do we have enough referees of a sufficient quality to make this work?

I don't think we do. This is not a good idea for SL. 

[Man of Kent]

Good stuff. All we need now is to ensure the ball is played with the foot and we’ll have a PTB, not a rollball

[Man of Kent]

20 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

What worries me is the purpose of the second ref in the NRL is to tidy up the ptb not speed it up.

Same thing 

[bobbruce]

8 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Same thing 

Absolutely isn’t and I even put one of the reasons why in the second part of my post. 

[MZH]

6 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Same thing 

Not necessarily.

I think its a myth that PTB's in SL are slower in NRL. The difference is that rucks in the NRL are fast but controlled. The best word I can come up with to describe SL is frantic.

I dont want to see quicker rucks per se. I want to see less hands in, I want to see players getting to their feet to play it (and actually using their foot), and I want to see players moving off the mark getting pulled up for it.

[Man of Kent]

Just now, bobbruce said:

Absolutely isn’t and I even put one of the reasons why in the second part of my post. 

Of course it is, Bob. 

The NRL has decreed that the optimal time to play the ball is four seconds and they think the one-ref system results in slower PTBs.

 

[DavidM]

I think tidying up the ruck is more important than speed . We’re obsessed with speed at the PTB which has made it a total farce and mess . The NRL has shown one can lead to the other . 

[Man of Kent]

2 minutes ago, MZH said:

Not necessarily.

I think its a myth that PTB's in SL are slower in NRL. The difference is that rucks in the NRL are fast but controlled. The best word I can come up with to describe SL is frantic.

I wasn’t talking about NRL v SL, I was talking about why the NRL has two refs.

Their main justification is it results in faster PTBs than with one ref. Tidier rucks are a consequence of their unwritten four second rule.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

What worries me is the purpose of the second ref in the NRL is to tidy up the ptb not speed it up. There are plenty of occasions when the second ref stops play and makes the attacker ptb from the right spot. 

Plenty of occasions where attackers gain extra ground at the PTB, step sideways, PTB sideways.  Do you not think it is right to stop that?

[Mr Plow]

1 hour ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

A couple of points:

1. We have about six full-time referees at present.

2. Do we have enough referees of a sufficient quality to make this work?

Will there be a video ref at every game? If so then you won’t need 2 in goal officials at every non televised game

[Oliver Clothesoff]

18 minutes ago, Mr Plow said:

Will there be a video ref at every game? If so then you won’t need 2 in goal officials at every non televised game

Surely you’ll still need two officials in goal if games aren’t televised?

[Mr Plow]

7 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Surely you’ll still need two officials in goal if games aren’t televised?

If all games have a VR then you don’t need 2 in goal refs so one can be used as a 2nd ref

[Bearman]

Even before they had two Refs the game was cleaner at the PTB.

One ref would be sufficient if he applied the rules. No hands in, roll away when the tackle is completed, stand up and touch the ball with the foot.  

IF the referees were to CONSISTENTLY apply penalties it would take the players less than 40 minutes to get the message.  That would fix the problem.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

10 minutes ago, Mr Plow said:

If all games have a VR then you don’t need 2 in goal refs so one can be used as a 2nd ref

All games won’t though. It’s financially not viable. 

[EastLondonMike]

10 minutes ago, Bearman said:

Even before they had two Refs the game was cleaner at the PTB.

One ref would be sufficient if he applied the rules. No hands in, roll away when the tackle is completed, stand up and touch the ball with the foot.  

IF the referees were to CONSISTENTLY apply penalties it would take the players less than 40 minutes to get the message.  That would fix the problem.

Don't know if you recall Bearman, but we did have a situation some years back when refs were instructed to be more strict at the PTB, the result being penalty heavy games, and rather than the coaches and players adapting the refs copped loads of abuse for being whistle happy. And sure enough the refs began reverting to the old approach within a few games.

id happily see two refs employed per game if it meant no hands in, holding on etc etc, and would hope this time round the players do adapt, in defence, but also in attack. 

[Man of Kent]

10 minutes ago, Bearman said:

One ref would be sufficient if he applied the rules. No hands in, roll away when the tackle is completed, stand up and touch the ball with the foot.  

IF the referees were to CONSISTENTLY apply penalties it would take the players less than 40 minutes to get the message.  That would fix the problem.

But they don’t because all too often SL players take the ###### by trying to browbeat the ref - who also has to worry about offside and keeping the 10 metres - into allowing slower PTBs.

 

[Chris22]

Couldn't the in-goal touch judge just move up with play behind the ruck to offer the extra pair of eyes needed in non-TV games?

It would save them standing around doing next to nothing all game behind the posts, or running to the opposite corner from where a conversion is taken, for no reason at all!

[Lobbygobbler]

Bonkers idea. We dont need two refs or a video ref. We dont have the money either. We should go back to a game controlled only by the ref

[Man of Kent]

Just now, Chris22 said:

Couldn't the in-goal touch judge just move up with play behind the ruck to offer the extra pair of eyes needed in non-TV games?

It would save them standing around doing next to nothing all game behind the posts, or running to the opposite corner from where a conversion is taken, for no reason at all!

I reckon that’s essentially what will happen. They will upgrade touch/in-goal judges to ‘pocket’ refs, who aren’t ‘proper’ refs.

[Lobbygobbler]

12 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

But they don’t because all too often SL players take the ###### by trying to browbeat the ref - who also has to worry about offside and keeping the 10 metres - into allowing slower PTBs.

 

Get rid of 10m then and make the game less “backward and forward, repeat”. Has only been part of RL since the late 90s.

nowt wrong with slower ptbs. Cant stand basketball scorelines either

[Man of Kent]

Just now, Lobbygobbler said:

Get rid of 10m then and make the game less “backward and forward, repeat”. Has only been part of RL since the late 90s.

nowt wrong with slower ptbs. Cant stand basketball scorelines either

I hear you but ultimately if we want Super League to be more intense and England to be more competitive against Australia then we have to keep up with the NRL.

Reduced interchanges and shot clocks will help that too.

I heard Luke Gale say the other day that during one of Wayne Bennett’s first coaching sessions during the Four Nations that a hungover James Graham won the bleep test. A pi$$ed prop!

[DoubleD]

This is one idea I don’t want to see coming from NRL. It creates an unnecessary distraction. The Aussies were even praising the one ref system when it reverted to internationals. A second ref is a complete waste of money and resource. 

It’s also a myth that you don’t get hands in the ruck in NRL with a 2 ref system