Refereeing (Multiple Merged Threads)

[RP London]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The disciplinary charged him and upheld the grade A charge.

The only impact of that however is a minor blot in his disciplinary record - no penalty either in the game or via suspension.

So the ref(s) got it wrong, but not wrong enough because he's got a good disciplinary record... that seems odd.

the last sentence, I dont think, is fair. You are putting 2 different things together, the ref and the disciplinary committee that dont belong together in the way you are implying. 

The ref got it wrong (but i think its one of those that will even itself out as i've watched it a few times this morning and I can see exactly why it wasnt given along with why it would have been).. but yep he got it wrong. But that is it.. 

The disciplinary committee then did exactly what it is there for, cite things that have been missed and charge them.. which is what they did and they upheld that charge.. then their decision was, with mitigating factors (defender dipping in and good record) that he serves no ban this time.

 

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

This is the point isnt it, by all means talk about a mistake a ref makes, or say he had a poor game because that can ams will happen while we continue to have human referees, to err is human and all that, its a garbage argument by idiots who say they aren't allowed to question refs etc. Yes you are, I often on here say I don't believe Childs is a good referee, not because of his mistakes but because he loses control of games far too often.

On the other hand at Workington we used to get Gareth Hewer who is from Whitehaven and had a relative coaching them. He used to get abuse at town for every decision against them, but he was easily the best ref we used to get at lower levels and I didn't once believe he was biased or vindictive in the way he reffed us.

So yes, questioning or criticising a ref is certainly allowed, abusing or claiming bias isn't.

What is "loses control of the game"? 

The ref isnt offside, doesn't knock on or high tackle, players do and players are responsible for this. Ref losing control is an excuse, refs simply call each decision to the best of their knowledge in real time, blaming the ref for the players and teams behaviour gives ref bashers even more ammo

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

What is "loses control of the game"? 

The ref isnt offside, doesn't knock on or high tackle, players do and players are responsible for this. Ref losing control is an excuse, refs simply call each decision to the best of their knowledge in real time, blaming the ref for the players and teams behaviour gives ref bashers even more ammo

The ref is like the police on the field. Part of their role is to manage the game.

[Dunbar]

28 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

What is "loses control of the game"? 

The ref isnt offside, doesn't knock on or high tackle, players do and players are responsible for this. Ref losing control is an excuse, refs simply call each decision to the best of their knowledge in real time, blaming the ref for the players and teams behaviour gives ref bashers even more ammo

I agree with this.

It is the same attitude as blaming the ref if a player get's away with foul play or cons a penalty.  It is the player who is cheating and the player who should take the flak, not the ref.

Same here. If players can't control themselves it is their fault, not the ref's.

This transfer of culpability from the players to the referee is one of the root causes of the issue surrounding respecting the referee. 

[RP London]

30 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

What is "loses control of the game"? 

The ref isnt offside, doesn't knock on or high tackle, players do and players are responsible for this. Ref losing control is an excuse, refs simply call each decision to the best of their knowledge in real time, blaming the ref for the players and teams behaviour gives ref bashers even more ammo

The only time i can understand it is if there are multiple fights.. normally that is to do with how the first one is managed.. however, when it comes to general ill discipline he can only call what he sees.. he can keep giving penalties and maybe a sin bin but for some that is losing control where as for many others its him trying to keep control.. 

[RP London]

19 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The ref is like the police on the field. Part of their role is to manage the game.

agree... they need to talk well with players to be able to get warnings across etc.. However, as with the police it is still then up the people to heed that advice and if not there are consequences.. 

 

[RP London]

the big thing with the refs is that they are damned if they do and damned if they dont because there are 2 very partisan sets of spectators.. 

therefore it is up to the coaches, the RFL and the media to give the balance... how the one decision did not turn the game, the decision was fair with the information they had (stop analysing to the nth degree).. stop showing every camera angle possible that the ref does not have access too and saying "oooh he got that one wrong" just because you can.

There is a saying i remember being told when at school... "the only people that dont make mistakes are those that do nothing"....  we all make mistakes, own up and learn from them... as long as the refs learn from them i'm ok with that, players should do too also (dont blame the ref... if you dont want to get binned/sent off dont skirt the fine line), as should coaches.. but it also means dont berate people for making mistakes help the learn from it so they dont make it again, but dont berate people for it otherwise you get to "those in glass houses" and the minute you make a mistake be prepared for a back lash... no one is Mr or Mrs perfect so stop acting like it IMHO (aimed at coaches, media, players not at anyone posting on this thread)

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, RP London said:

agree... they need to talk well with players to be able to get warnings across etc.. However, as with the police it is still then up the people to heed that advice and if not there are consequences.. 

 

Of course - but there are plenty of feelings that the police don't manage situations well and this is a similarity with Refs managing a game with 2 teams.

Fairness is the most requisite point I have found. Where there is a feeling of unfairness then respect diminishes.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

16 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I have been involved in business for the last 30 years and I can genuinely not remember a single instance of a leader criticising an employee, a partner or supplier in public because they have made a mistake.  I have seen a few do it outside of my career and they are all very poor examples of business leaders.

This idea that sport is now a business and so we must demand referees be completely infallible is ridiculous.

And more than ridiculous, it is impossible.  You can demand perfection from referees all you like but you will never get it.

If we demand perfection from referees, why do we not demand perfection from players?

Dunbar you really are being facetious now.

I have no idea what on earth you are referring to regarding public criticism from their leaders. I referred to a behind closed doors questioning.

It has nothing to do with demanding perfection it is to do with consistently getting the big calls right.

As has been said repeatedly; the criticism comes not so much from errors like a knock on that is not noticed but the glaring mistakes like the Currie tackle.

They (officials on the day) have absolutely no excuses whatsoever. None.

They all witnessed Currie make the tackle and then become very agitated and request the medics for the bloke he had just concussed.

Logically it can only be one of two things; They either chose not to penalise or were not fully versed on the rules and were subsequently corrected by the MRP which amounts to the same thing.

It simply cannot be anything other than that can it, unless of course you suggest that the officials collectively missed the entire episode which is fanciful isnt it?!

You must understand the difference between a minor mistake and a grotesque mistake.

This is why Agar says he will be asking questions of the officials in his post match conference and specifically mentions that tackle. The consistency is not there.

These decisions have the potential to swing games. I do not know any fan that expects the officials to be perfect however it is absolutely right to expect circumstances like the Currie tackle, where all the officials witnessed it and with the aid of a video referee, to be penalise correctly 100% of the time. If they see it and they know the rules no excuses exist.

Look at F1 - Michael Masi made one mistake and it seems it will cost him his job. This might help you understand the difference between a small mistake and a severe one. You need to realise that internally a referee will be judged on the type of mistakes he/she is making just like we all are in our own jobs.

If you do not want to accept the point I am making and just roll everything I am saying into the 'we all make mistakes and referees are no different' defence then we have no point in debating any further.

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course - but there are plenty of feelings that the police don't manage situations well and this is a similarity with Refs managing a game with 2 teams.

Fairness is the most requisite point I have found. Where there is a feeling of unfairness then respect diminishes.

of course.. are you saying the refs are being deliberately unfair? I have never seen a ref and thought he is deliberately being unfair to a team, i have often thought a team need to get more disciplined.. 

game management is about talking to people to manage them so that you can try and get the team not being disciplined to be disciplined without using cards.. its to make the game "playable"... its not to even up the penalty count or be nice to a team etc.. A ref needs to be fair, but the players need to play fair (play by the rules) too. If the players really want to play by the rules normally the ref just saying "look you are getting very close to offside, keep overstepping the mark, just take another step" or "just keep the tackles down, they're creeping up" will work.. if the players want to "play on the edge" and not heed his comments what exactly do you expect him to do?

All of this is caveated by the fact the Ref only sees most incidents once and has to make a split decision and can make mistakes (as players do too).. 

 

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Dunbar you really are being facetious now.

I have no idea what on earth you are referring to regarding public criticism from their leaders. I referred to a behind closed doors questioning.

It has nothing to do with demanding perfection it is to do with consistently getting the big calls right.

As has been said repeatedly; the criticism comes not so much from errors like a knock on that is not noticed but the glaring mistakes like the Currie tackle.

They (officials on the day) have absolutely no excuses whatsoever. None.

They all witnessed Currie make the tackle and then become very agitated and request the medics for the bloke he had just concussed.

Logically it can only be one of two things; They either chose not to penalise or were not fully versed on the rules and were subsequently corrected by the MRP.

It simply cannot be anything other than that can it, unless of course you suggest that the officials collectively missed the entire episode which is fanciful isnt it?!

You must understand the difference between a minor mistake and a grotesque mistake.

This is why Agar says he will be asking questions of the officials in his post match conference and specifically mentions that tackle. The consistency is not there.

These decisions have the potential to swing games. I do not know any fan that expects the officials to be perfect however it is absolutely right to expect circumstances like the Currie tackle, where all the officials witnessed it and with the aid of a video referee, to be penalise correctly 100% of the time. If they see it and they know the rules no excuses exist.

Look at F1 - Michael Masi made one mistake and it seems it will cost him his job. This might help you understand the difference between a small mistake and a severe one. You need to realise that internally a referee will be judged on the type of mistakes he/she is making just like we all are in our own jobs.

If you do not want to accept the point I am making and just roll everything I am saying into the 'we all make mistakes and referees are no different' defence then we have no point in debating any further.

You seem to be conflating the management of performance with public criticism which are two very different things.

I have seen many managers address performance behind closed doors (I am someone who has had to manage performance many times in my career) but it is never accompanied by public criticism.

The referees have a performance element as well and this will be managed during the game review with the refereeing leadership but coaches spouting off about referee performances is not a part of this process.

As for the getting the calls right.  Again, this simply won't happen.  Our sport is not like the hawkeye technology in tennis where there is an objectively right or wrong call.  Every single incident in a game of Rugby League is different - three tackles where contact was made with the head and neck in the Leeds Warrington game were all different.  We have to expect that referees will see incidents differently and make a call as such.  Maybe they get some right and maybe they get some wrong... but again, this is human nature.  We see in football how so many of the calls made by VAR are disputed across pundits after dozens of replays.  It is because it is not simple.  And I will say again, suggesting that they should get 100% of the video based calls right is unrealistic and unhelpful.

Finally, I am just putting my point across.  Not sure why you have to describe it as being facetious. 

[dkw]

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

What is "loses control of the game"? 

The ref isnt offside, doesn't knock on or high tackle, players do and players are responsible for this. Ref losing control is an excuse, refs simply call each decision to the best of their knowledge in real time, blaming the ref for the players and teams behaviour gives ref bashers even more ammo

He allows far too many players to voice their opinion at him, and often seems to frustrate players leading to very tetchy games. Otherwise I think he's an excellent ref, very consistent. 

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

You seem to be conflating the management of performance with public criticism which are two very different things.

I have seen many managers address performance behind closed doors (I am someone who has had to manage performance many times in my career) but it is never accompanied by public criticism.

The referees have a performance element as well and this will be managed during the game review with the refereeing leadership but coaches spouting off about referee performances is not a part of this process.

As for the getting the calls right.  Again, this simply won't happen.  Our sport is not like the hawkeye technology in tennis where there is an objectively right or wrong call.  Every single incident in a game of Rugby League is different - three tackles where contact was made with the head and neck in the Leeds Warrington game were all different.  We have to expect that referees will see incidents differently and make a call as such.  Maybe they get some right and maybe they get some wrong... but again, this is human nature.  We see in football how so many of the calls made by VAR are disputed across pundits after dozens of replays.  It is because it is not simple.  And I will say again, suggesting that they should get 100% of the video based calls right is unrealistic and unhelpful.

Finally, I am just putting my point across.  Not sure why you have to describe it as being facetious. 

Your analogy doesn't make much sense to me Dunbar, I am sorry. I assume you have not worked in professional sport whereby outside criticism from connected entities do have a genuine and connected stake in your performance. All of this (RL), by the nature of the beast, is primarily in the public eye also.

Agar and all coaches are judged on results. Agar was not at fault when the officials did not penalise the Currie tackle, the officials were. Agar suggesting he is concerned about the consistency of the calls ie why Dwyer but not Currie. He was asked in a press conference - he did not publicise it but rather answered a question. He has been vindicated by the fact Currie was subsequently charged.

The game is obviously before the public and not behind closed doors like a regular business would be. The analogy is a distraction from the topic too. The referee knows he is paid to work and his performance will be judged by the stakeholders (clubs), and not only by the RFL.

You make another analogy regarding football pundits critiquing officials. A pundit is a pundit and is not trained in the laws of the sport like a referee and so is not relevant.

What we have here is the officials on the day not penalising Currie and then more officials later contradicting that decision by charging him. This is inconsistent you must be able to see this?! This is my point.

The rules are defined and should be enforced consistently which they are not. It is that simple.

Again, for the purposes of this specific example (Currie), no excuses can reasonably be offered for the officials.

The officials on the day cannot possibly have not seen the incident - I believe this is a moot point.

Assuming they have seen the incident; they (officials) decided no case to answer. Later the MRP suggested that this was wrong and charged Currie.

You must accept that this is wrong. It is inconsistent.

Either the officials got it wrong, having watched it in real time and then considered it on video or the MRP did. Can you imagine going to a solicitors and paying for contradicting advice. They are the experts policing the game and they cannot agree with each other having both properly considered it.

Totally unprofessional and not acceptable.

This is entirely different to a knock on that has been missed, these mistakes are not being challenged. This is a considered decision of which the rules should always be applied in the same way, otherwise the RFL is failing the sport.

Until you accept that there is a difference between the knock on mistake and the Currie style of error then you wont get my point.

A coach rarely complains about marginal calls or missed knocks on (sometimes they might say we came out on the wrong side of some 50/50) but when they moan it is about consistency.

Maybe we just agree to disagree.

[fighting irish]

16 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Was a tackle reckless, you may say it is I may not be sure, we then have a different opinion on the same incident. You send off I give ten minutes. 

Professional foul, you believe a defender slows down play to save a try, I don't believe there was a realistic chance of a try. You give ten minutes I don't. 

Yes, these are good examples.

As stated in my earlier post, I think that these are situations where clear guidelines can be given by the governing body, depending on it's preferences (or moral judgements).

We have seen last weekend the games new ''crackdown'' on head shots and late tackles, likely to cause whiplash. These are specific examples of foul play that the game wants to eliminate, in order to offset (duty of care) negligence claims in future.

We could all (I'm sure) write a list of professional fouls (designed to hurt players) which the game could decide to eliminate and rightly so, such as striking the head, upending the tackled player, diving into the knee of an opposition player while held standing. etc. etc.

In the first case, you could say that any accidental contact or carelessness (simple disregard for the other players safety) while striking a player in any of the specific examples given above, demands at least 10 minutes in the bin, any sign of deliberate intent to foul (and/or to injure) especially if an injury is caused, demands a sending off.

Under these circumstances you might argue that players would likely feign injury, but wouldn't you say it would reduce the number of reckless tackles pretty quickly.

Your second example is a bit wooly (ill defined) but we already have laws against slowing down play, for example by holding the tackled player down and preventing a quick play-the-ball and the law makers could give guidelines (as suggested in my first post) to direct the referee when he is uncertain. Slowing down the play the ball (not rolling away immediately) is already an offense. Define the punishment in an unambiguous way. I'd suggest, that in the first instance a penalty is awarded. Repeat offenses, result in an escalation of the punishment on each occasion, next is a sin bin, next is a sending off.

Anyway, not to nit-pick too much, the general point is that clear unambiguous rules/guidelines remove the responsibility and the burden of subjective judgements from the referee, making him immune to criticism from the spectators. 

[fighting irish]

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

In any incident the ref either blows his whistle or doesn't, to do that he has made a decision about the incidents legality, during the course of 80mins he must do this contiously scores of time.

Some people think that by not blowing his whistle, the ref 'missed it' whatever it was, even if he is as you say is uncertain, he has still made a decision if he doesn't blow his whistle. 

Well Harry, I don't understand what your point is?

Forgive me for saying it so bluntly but you seem to be stating the obvious.

In the example you give, the ref has either 1) missed it, 2) judged its clearly not an example of rule breaking or 3) is (possibly) uncertain but (if the rules and guidelines were unambiguous) knows that the guidelines compel him to wave play on, thereby giving the benefit of doubt to the attacking team.

In cases 2) and 3) he is making a decision, no question but if the crowd don't like the decision the referee is above reproach, (beyond criticism) because he's acting in keeping with the rules of the game and the guidelines in  the rule book.

In the first instance, (I believe) the referee should be able to rely on his touch judges to advise him (by radio). 

[RP London]

36 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Your analogy doesn't make much sense to me Dunbar, I am sorry. I assume you have not worked in professional sport whereby outside criticism from connected entities do have a genuine and connected stake in your performance. All of this (RL), by the nature of the beast, is primarily in the public eye also.

Agar and all coaches are judged on results. Agar was not at fault when the officials did not penalise the Currie tackle, the officials were. Agar suggesting he is concerned about the consistency of the calls ie why Dwyer but not Currie. He was asked in a press conference - he did not publicise it but rather answered a question. He has been vindicated by the fact Currie was subsequently charged.

The game is obviously before the public and not behind closed doors like a regular business would be. The analogy is a distraction from the topic too. The referee knows he is paid to work and his performance will be judged by the stakeholders (clubs), and not only by the RFL.

You make another analogy regarding football pundits critiquing officials. A pundit is a pundit and is not trained in the laws of the sport like a referee and so is not relevant.

What we have here is the officials on the day not penalising Currie and then more officials later contradicting that decision by charging him. This is inconsistent you must be able to see this?! This is my point.

The rules are defined and should be enforced consistently which they are not. It is that simple.

Again, for the purposes of this specific example (Currie), no excuses can reasonably be offered for the officials.

The officials on the day cannot possibly have not seen the incident - I believe this is a moot point.

Assuming they have seen the incident; they (officials) decided no case to answer. Later the MRP suggested that this was wrong and charged Currie.

You must accept that this is wrong. It is inconsistent.

Either the officials got it wrong, having watched it in real time and then considered it on video or the MRP did. Can you imagine going to a solicitors and paying for contradicting advice. They are the experts policing the game and they cannot agree with each other having both properly considered it.

Totally unprofessional and not acceptable.

This is entirely different to a knock on that has been missed, these mistakes are not being challenged. This is a considered decision of which the rules should always be applied in the same way, otherwise the RFL is failing the sport.

Until you accept that there is a difference between the knock on mistake and the Currie style of error then you wont get my point.

A coach rarely complains about marginal calls or missed knocks on (sometimes they might say we came out on the wrong side of some 50/50) but when they moan it is about consistency.

Maybe we just agree to disagree.

I've got to say that i dont agree with you on the Ben Currie incident.. I have just watched it a number of times on All 4 and i've been looking for where the ref etc are... ALL of them are blind sided by Ben Curries body.. They cannot see the arm that comes across and catches him in the head, all they can see is his body smash in to his back... You will point to the reaction of the players, because you already have, but the reaction of the other players are to an injury not to a cause of an injury.. as we see in many matches injuries can be caused by a completely innocuous and legal tackle.. As a Ref you cannot, and should not, make a judgement on that basis. 

I dont believe, but happy to be proven wrong, that he can go to the video referee to check this sort of incident.. he can only be called on for tries, checking a 40-20, a restart (whether its a drop out or tap) and I believe the video ref can jump in about mistaken identity but other than that he cannot be used.. 

However, that is exactly what the citing commission is there for, and always has been... this has happened many many times in the past and I am sure Leeds have had occasions where it has happened that one of their players is not pulled up and then gets cited in the week.. it happens always has always will (it does in Union and their video ref can get involved whenever they think the ref has missed something). 

The Dwyer incident is different as it is completely open play and can be seen quite easily by the ref... i am sure we will see a number of these missed though in the coming weeks when a ref is blindsided only for the player to be cited because of the flexion in the neck.. 

The Currie incident is a missed penalty but this has always happened and always will unless the video ref is used to double check everything and can stop a game mid flow as they do in union.. just for the ref to check.. I am sure the Ref will look at it and say "damn i missed that".. but if he cant see it, and the touch judge cannot see it (which from looking at the replays and footage on the TV they are both looking at curries back and nothing more) what are you expecting to happen?? 

[Dunbar]

44 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Your analogy doesn't make much sense to me Dunbar, I am sorry. I assume you have not worked in professional sport whereby outside criticism from connected entities do have a genuine and connected stake in your performance. All of this (RL), by the nature of the beast, is primarily in the public eye also.

Agar and all coaches are judged on results. Agar was not at fault when the officials did not penalise the Currie tackle, the officials were. Agar suggesting he is concerned about the consistency of the calls ie why Dwyer but not Currie. He was asked in a press conference - he did not publicise it but rather answered a question. He has been vindicated by the fact Currie was subsequently charged.

The game is obviously before the public and not behind closed doors like a regular business would be. The analogy is a distraction from the topic too. The referee knows he is paid to work and his performance will be judged by the stakeholders (clubs), and not only by the RFL.

You make another analogy regarding football pundits critiquing officials. A pundit is a pundit and is not trained in the laws of the sport like a referee and so is not relevant.

What we have here is the officials on the day not penalising Currie and then more officials later contradicting that decision by charging him. This is inconsistent you must be able to see this?! This is my point.

The rules are defined and should be enforced consistently which they are not. It is that simple.

Again, for the purposes of this specific example (Currie), no excuses can reasonably be offered for the officials.

The officials on the day cannot possibly have not seen the incident - I believe this is a moot point.

Assuming they have seen the incident; they (officials) decided no case to answer. Later the MRP suggested that this was wrong and charged Currie.

You must accept that this is wrong. It is inconsistent.

Either the officials got it wrong, having watched it in real time and then considered it on video or the MRP did. Can you imagine going to a solicitors and paying for contradicting advice. They are the experts policing the game and they cannot agree with each other having both properly considered it.

Totally unprofessional and not acceptable.

This is entirely different to a knock on that has been missed, these mistakes are not being challenged. This is a considered decision of which the rules should always be applied in the same way, otherwise the RFL is failing the sport.

Until you accept that there is a difference between the knock on mistake and the Currie style of error then you wont get my point.

A coach rarely complains about marginal calls or missed knocks on (sometimes they might say we came out on the wrong side of some 50/50) but when they moan it is about consistency.

Maybe we just agree to disagree.

Yes, we have both made our points, it does feel at this stage that agreeing to disagree is the sensible option.

[David Dockhouse Host]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

The ref is like the police on the field. Part of their role is to manage the game.

Vague statement though 'manage the game' and implies responsibility for player behaviour is the ref not the player.

If a poster on here is rude, aggressive, vulgar is it the posters fault or board admins fault for not controlling them? After all it's part of admins role is to manage the board.

[David Dockhouse Host]

55 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Yes, these are good examples.

As stated in my earlier post, I think that these are situations where clear guidelines can be given by the governing body, depending on it's preferences (or moral judgements).

We have seen last weekend the games new ''crackdown'' on head shots and late tackles, likely to cause whiplash. These are specific examples of foul play that the game wants to eliminate, in order to offset (duty of care) negligence claims in future.

We could all (I'm sure) write a list of professional fouls (designed to hurt players) which the game could decide to eliminate and rightly so, such as striking the head, upending the tackled player, diving into the knee of an opposition player while held standing. etc. etc.

In the first case, you could say that any accidental contact or carelessness (simple disregard for the other players safety) while striking a player in any of the specific examples given above, demands at least 10 minutes in the bin, any sign of deliberate intent to foul (and/or to injure) especially if an injury is caused, demands a sending off.

Under these circumstances you might argue that players would likely feign injury, but wouldn't you say it would reduce the number of reckless tackles pretty quickly.

Your second example is a bit wooly (ill defined) but we already have laws against slowing down play, for example by holding the tackled player down and preventing a quick play-the-ball and the law makers could give guidelines (as suggested in my first post) to direct the referee when he is uncertain. Slowing down the play the ball (not rolling away immediately) is already an offense. Define the punishment in an unambiguous way. I'd suggest, that in the first instance a penalty is awarded. Repeat offenses, result in an escalation of the punishment on each occasion, next is a sin bin, next is a sending off.

Anyway, not to nit-pick too much, the general point is that clear unambiguous rules/guidelines remove the responsibility and the burden of subjective judgements from the referee, making him immune to criticism from the spectators. 

Good post

I agree clearly defined rules would help but they will never solve the issue.

It is always a human applying the rule, we both will, as seen in this very thread view the same incident differently, therefore we may apply the rule consistently but see the incident differently.

PS. As a side note  The not rolling away has been largely removed due to constant surrender tackles. The episodes we did on the ruck cover this, we did three! And there's probably more to discuss!

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

10 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Good post

I agree clearly defined rules would help but they will never solve the issue.

It is always a human applying the rule, we both will, as seen in this very thread view the same incident differently, therefore we may apply the rule consistently but see the incident differently.

PS. As a side note  The not rolling away has been largely removed due to constant surrender tackles. The episodes we did on the ruck cover this, we did three! And there's probably more to discuss!

Do you agree that all the 'officials' at the RFL, if presented with the same incident to watch, should apply the rules and come to the same conclusion?

For the purpose of the example and not to complicate anything - this is a video analysis much the same as the video referee or even the MRP.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Do you agree that all the 'officials' at the RFL, if presented with the same incident to watch, should apply the rules and come to the same conclusion?

For the purpose of the example and not to complicate anything - this is a video analysis much the same as the video referee or even the MRP.

I would assume it's highly likely they would but regardless of the amount of times watched some incidents would be debatable, just like this and many other threads people don't always agree.

It's not as black and white as people would have you believe or wish it was, once accepted people will have more understanding of decisions 

Edit. To add...

We could flip this argument on its head. Do you believe every single decision is so clear it's not possible for any official to have a different opinion on the outcome?

[Dunbar]

38 minutes ago, MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield said:

Do you agree that all the 'officials' at the RFL, if presented with the same incident to watch, should apply the rules and come to the same conclusion?

For the purpose of the example and not to complicate anything - this is a video analysis much the same as the video referee or even the MRP.

With respect, this is a bit of a red herring.  Multiple officials looking at the same incident is not a thing (unless of course they were looking at incidents in a referee training & development session which would be realistic).

But you are not asking for the consistency of multiple referees looking at the same incident and coming to the same conclusion.  You are asking for the same referee to look at multiple (variable) incidents and coming to a consistent conclusion which is a very different thing.  In fact, you are asking for multiple referees, across multiple matches to look at multiple (variable) incidents to come to consistent conclusions and that is what we are saying is impossible.

[Tommygilf]

39 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Vague statement though 'manage the game' and implies responsibility for player behaviour is the ref not the player.

If a poster on here is rude, aggressive, vulgar is it the posters fault or board admins fault for not controlling them? After all it's part of admins role is to manage the board.

A ref, like the police in society and a Mod on this forum, is there to facilitate something. They have the option of punishment at their disposal but it isn't their primary function.

A ref is part of a game, just like the police would be part of crowd/protest. Some are zealous and want to assert their authority as their method of management, others take a more invitational approach.

You can't account for dickheads of course.

[David Dockhouse Host]

40 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

A ref, like the police in society and a Mod on this forum, is there to facilitate something. They have the option of punishment at their disposal but it isn't their primary function.

A ref is part of a game, just like the police would be part of crowd/protest. Some are zealous and want to assert their authority as their method of management, others take a more invitational approach.

You can't account for dickheads of course.

Interesting point, essentially your saying different refs will take different approaches and will assert their authority differently. If this is true it confirms that different refs will see incidents differently and give a different outcome/decision believing it the best course of action. Therefore not consistent.

I think this massively overplays what a ref does relating it to policing and crowd control. They are not the same roles, refs deal with paid professional athletes, this is very different. 

Refs approaches may be different but I believe this will be subtle and doesn't excuse in any way player behaviour or put the responsibility of player behaviour onto the ref.

 

[MZH]

Someone define a refereeing mistake for me. Because this is the point I always come back to. All decisions are based on what the referee thought he saw based on a split second view, and all he can do is apply the rules based on that.

If a referee gives a red card because he thought there was direct contact with the head, then he has made the correct decision regardless of where the initial contact actually was. Perhaps the contact was actually on the shoulder and slid up. It's irrelevant. The referee thought it was direct contact to the head and has applied the rules correctly. Now if he knew full well it was chest first but he forgot what the rules said and showed a red. That's a mistake. But we can't mitigate against a ref simply not getting a good view of an incident, because he's expected to make a call whether he's seen it clearly or not.