Jump to content

Refereeing meeting today - all change!


Recommended Posts


4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The litigation is (to me) irrelevant. I've always preferred foul play being dealt with on the day first and foremost.

I haven't seen any comment to suggest otherwise.

If its clearly a late tackle then it would be dealt with/punished on the field, penalty or sin binned or sent off depending upon circumstances.   It seems to me that the ref's have been under pressure or felt as if they were under pressure to give the maximum punishment whether warranted or not.  Rather than leaving it more to their discretion, hence some of the more severe punishments out of kilter to the offence.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

I haven't seen any comment to suggest otherwise.

If its clearly a late tackle then it would be dealt with/punished on the field, penalty or sin binned or sent off depending upon circumstances.   It seems to me that the ref's have been under pressure or felt as if they were under pressure to give the maximum punishment whether warranted or not.  Rather than leaving it more to their discretion, hence some of the more severe punishments out of kilter to the offence.

 

As long as you don't come along later asking for consistency.

Or complain that an offence got a lenient on-field punishment.

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

As long as you don't come along later asking for consistency.

Or complain that an offence got a lenient on-field punishment.

Totally agree with this - discretion by definition is the enemy of consistency.

The main things we should be focussing on aren't the big and obvious ones like Bentley etc. It's the marginal stuff where in my view they have lost their way - and that was always going to be the case given the way the thing has been implemented and communicated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

As long as you don't come along later asking for consistency.

Or complain that an offence got a lenient on-field punishment.

Can never get consistency as ref are like us human being. Ref's will however collective always be more consistent than fans or commentators on a forum because at least they will meet to try and iron out approaches.

As to being more or less lenient in the eyes of us watching, it will remain as it always has... differing views from the collective fans, which will also include a degree of bias. At least ref's see things without any club bias.

To add, of course their will now be inconsistency as to how players are dealt with - that is prior to now it will have been applied different, e.g. Cas would probably have not lost a player against Wigan, which may have been a factor in that loss.   Unfortunately that due to the poor way its the earlier change was implemented.  

Edited by redjonn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Consulting coaches about action on foul play. 

Well that’s as about as ridiculous as it gets… unless of course the decisions being made are even more ridiculous.

RFL should tell the coaches to rack off.

It's all to do with coaching methods, what they can or can't do (get away with)

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/03/2022 at 11:22, Phil W said:

Surely it's a case of the players needing to adapt. Instead the clubs have gone moaning and I feel for the referee's here they've been officiating as they've told to and now they have to change.

It reminds of a conversation a man had with his dog.

"Sit....I said sit....SIT.....OK stand then".

  • Like 1

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, super major said:

I think the coaches are fully behind making the game less dangerous to play.The fact is some tackles end up being unintentionally dangerous. It seems an adjustment in interpretation has been called for and accepted. To blame coaches is ridiculous, they do not want to lose players from injury any more than from suspension.

As a game it is vitaly important that the disciplinary side takes the rest of us with it and some of the decisions recently have been poor. The match review panel under Cullen has been looking at instances of suspected foul play and deciding what was in a players mind

 

If it takes coaches to demonstrate to a referee and the disciplinary panel the difference between intent, recklessness and carelessness, then the wrong people are in charge.

There hasn’t been suitable leadership at the RFL since Lewis.

Edited by Sports Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

If it takes coaches to demonstrate to a referee and the disciplinary panel the difference between intent, recklessness and carelessness, then the wrong people are in charge.

There hasn’t been suitable leadership at the RFL since Lewis.

To be fair to SM he hasn’t said that.  He is saying that it isn’t in the coaches interest to keep players on the pitch.

In my opinion, and I raised it in another thread, not enough collaboration has been done between coaches and referees.  I mentioned Radfords comments and now we have Matt Peet saying this didn’t happen until too late, so I think it is partly a leadership issue, lacking in timely communication.  If Moorhouse advice is so strong then why not immediately the season ended?

I would prefer any incident is adjudged on the pitch though and not delayed by an easy ‘on report’.  Referees are caught in between their own decision and the VR these days.  We’ve had a couple of mistakes but our Refs have not been that far off.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

To be fair to SM he hasn’t said that.  He is saying that it isn’t in the coaches interest to keep players on the pitch.

In my opinion, and I raised it in another thread, not enough collaboration has been done between coaches and referees.  I mentioned Radfords comments and now we have Matt Peet saying this didn’t happen until too late, so I think it is partly a leadership issue, lacking in timely communication.  If Moorhouse advice is so strong then why not immediately the season ended?

I would prefer any incident is adjudged on the pitch though and not delayed by an easy ‘on report’.  Referees are caught in between their own decision and the VR these days.  We’ve had a couple of mistakes but our Refs have not been that far off.

I think the last line is absolutely spot on. It will be a shame if we back away from this now. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly a couple of incidents of note that are bearing the fruits of the meeting in the Cas Leeds game already.

Leeming caught square in the face, no mitigating factors, no penalty. Likewise O'Connor on Mamo(?) High tackle, just a penalty.

They are just the examples which stood out to me in the first half.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/03/2022 at 20:52, Dunbar said:

There is always the option, and hear me out on this one, to let the referees just use their common sense and referee the game as they see fit.

We could but then because they are human some will see the same incident differently, them applying 'common sense' will lead to inconsistent judgements.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Clearly a couple of incidents of note that are bearing the fruits of the meeting in the Cas Leeds game already.

Leeming caught square in the face, no mitigating factors, no penalty. Likewise O'Connor on Mamo(?) High tackle, just a penalty.

They are just the examples which stood out to me in the first half.

Gannon would have had 10 minutes if todays game had been refereed as last week’s.  Not even a penalty this week. And I think it probably should have been a penalty, but no more. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

Gannon would have had 10 minutes if todays game had been refereed as last week’s.  Not even a penalty this week. And I think it probably should have been a penalty, but no more. 

There is the risk that it goes too far the other way now with refs deliberately avoiding dishing out punishments. Hopefully a balance can be struck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/03/2022 at 12:44, dkw said:

How about they stop micromanaging Referees to within an inch of their lives, let them control games with their own common sense within the rules, allow them to make mistakes without fear of being downgraded constantly by assessors....

People continually ask for accountability though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There is the risk that it goes too far the other way now with refs deliberately avoiding dishing out punishments. Hopefully a balance can be struck.

Absolutely. But I don’t think it’ll take long to get the balance right. I think it’s nearer to correct this week than last. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

There is the risk that it goes too far the other way now with refs deliberately avoiding dishing out punishments. Hopefully a balance can be struck.

I think he got them all right today. The one on Leeming was completely accidental and should never be a penalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dkw said:

I think he got them all right today. The one on Leeming was completely accidental and should never be a penalty. 

It would have been at least a penalty last week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

It would have been at least a penalty last week.

No doubt, probably even a sin binning as the edict was any head contact was a yellow. Which was ridiculous. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are all in agreement that this reeks of unprofessionalism.

Or in other words, making it up as you go along.

Sort of makes sense that tackle on Greenwood last night and some of the antics at Leeds. 

My worry is that coaches faced with our paucity of talent, might find it easier to rough it up. Come on some of the older lads recall those days. They weren't great in hindsight.

It worries me the Suits imagine abit of cheap violence will see the money divided, whilst the women get excited. You know WWF with an oval ball. 

Whilst I am not alone in enjoying a bit of biff, I don't like the grub. If the ref let it go, then grub will happen.

How ######. 

 

Edited by idrewthehaggis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/03/2022 at 09:13, LeeF said:

So the coaches have admitted that they can’t coach their players to play within the laws of the game so have insisted that the Match Officials stop fully enforcing the laws. Brilliant 

Thing is its a high speed collision sport with lots of mitigating factors , despite peoples best efforts there are going to be penalties which everyone needs to accept.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

I think we are all in agreement that this reeks of unprofessionalism.

You think wrongly, though. 

However, I think we are unanimous in rejecting the use of "common sense". Whenever those two words are mentioned, the whole nation recoils in terror.😀😀

Edited by JohnM
  • Like 1

I'm interested in that drive, that rush to judgment, that is so prevalent in our society. We all know that pleasurable rush that comes from condemning, and in the short term it's quite a satisfying thing to do, isn't it?

J. K. Rowling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they did this 2-3 years ago in RU and stuck to it and players adapted. The point of this was to reduce head high tackles, sure there have been some sin bins which were accidental contact, just sort them out. So the message is, you can go back to head high tackles, it's okay. If the RFL want to protect themselves against future claims for concussion, they have just shot themselves on both feet.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/03/2022 at 18:42, Lowdesert said:

Matt Shaw includes faking injury and more detail discussed.

I thought there would’ve been an official RFL press release by now.


https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-simulation-play-acting-23507078

So who coaches and selects these players who are faking injuries......? Yes, it's the coaches. So why don't the do something about it?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...