Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Why is it that in rugby league, unlike many other sports, international referees can be and often are selected from one of the competing countries? ...

View the full article

Rugby League World magazine is published every month, available on print subscription (worldwide) and online for desktop, tablet and smartphone
Follow us on Twitter/X @rlworld / Instagram @rlworld / Threads @rlworld
Like us on Facebook - facebook.com/rugbyleagueworld


Posted

Yes, they should. And at the same time, it doesn't matter. 

If it's cost-effective and there's an opportunity to appoint a neutral ref, do it. Otherwise, I don't believe--at least not in rugby league--that it puts into question the integrity of the man with the whistle or the game being played. If anything, refs who are working on a game in which their country is playing are probably going to swing to the other extreme in an attempt to look even more impartial. That's probably the biggest fear. 

For some reason it's hard for many to comprehend that these are professionals who are doing their job. Unless they're on the take with bookies--and there's no reason to believe that's a problem in international rugby league--the best course of action is to select the best referees full-stop, irrespective of their nationality and the teams involved. 

  • Like 5
Posted (edited)

pH7 for me, all the way, but we don't have enough free hydrogen ions and free hydroxyl ions to go round, so it's fine as it is, in my view.

Edited by JohnM
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

We had this in the past, and all we got from the Aussies was whining because the neutral refs weren't "up to standard". If only there was a way to get them up to standard, maybe by using them as neutral refs in international games...

Edited by dkw
  • Like 1
Posted

Yes they should, but if England are playing France for example, are they really going to pay to fly someone in from Australia, and the same if Aus are playing NZ who are they going to get to do it? 

  • Like 1
Posted

Of course they SHOULD but there has to be higher priorities at the moment, such as staging any sort of international rugby league to need referees for.

  • Like 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Yes they should, but if England are playing France for example, are they really going to pay to fly someone in from Australia, and the same if Aus are playing NZ who are they going to get to do it? 

The game is wealthy enough to pay for flights and match fee for a top ref in both instances. If the will is there, it shouldn't be a problem.

The easier option is often taken because I don't think there are any questions over the integrity of the 'home' referees. It's just not the kind of problem that it would be in football, where you see shadiness all the time, such is that sport's relationship with gambling and bribery. 

Posted

Absolutely they should be, and not only the central ref but the whole officiating crew.  That's how it's done in serious International sports where there isn't even one official from either country.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Eddie said:

Yes they should, but if England are playing France for example, are they really going to pay to fly someone in from Australia, and the same if Aus are playing NZ who are they going to get to do it? 

We did exactly that a couple of decades ago.

Edited by Damien
Posted
46 minutes ago, Damien said:

We did exactly a couple of decades ago.

True, but the international game is absolutely skint. 

Posted

Yes.

Bit of a leftfield one, but snooker is a game which is played to a high level in no more countries than ours, and has some highly intricate rules, but seems to have a roster of referees from all over the world. How did they do it? Can we have the same. You only need to find half a dozen willing and able people and train them up.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Posted

The only thing I can think of is that it is a deliberate policy to raise social media engagement as fans can bang on about how bias the ref was after a 5-4 penalty count.

I suppose it beats actually talking about the game. 

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.