TBF FA Faxfan doesn't claim to be an expert. I've a few friends that follow teams in the Championship and Championship 1 who say that officials at those levels do get more things wrong than at SL level. This wasn't expressed in any kind of rant or anything, just a sober opionion based on watching rugby at different levels.

We both know it's a difficult, thankless task.

I was replying to Faxfan but the main diatribe isn't specifically aimed at him, but at the perennial ref-bashers and baiters that start endless threads immediately after pretty much every match.

It seems reasonable that less experienced refs would get more things wrong than more experienced refs, but one thing I would bet a LOT of money is that, in any given game, if it was properly recorded and analysed, the majority of decisions that any given ref critic complained about would end up having in fact been correct.

Don't get me wrong, I love a shout at the ref, and the linesman on the stand side, as much as the next man, it's part of the game experience isn't it, but the number of times on the video afterwards I've had to concede the ref was right, or arguably right, far exceeds the times he was palpably wrong.

But don't get me started on video refs ...

What gets me about Hicks is that all he does at PTB is wave his arms for defending team to get onside but NEVER looks to check that they have done so.After a couple of PTB's liberties begin to be taken. But so what, guess it doesnt really matter. Does it.

I think that's pretty general, with most refs, at the PTB.

In fact, it was taken to a new low [height?] at Cas on Sunday when Mr Stokes didn't bother blowing offside against Luke Dorn when, at a Bulls PTB, nine metres out, he walked in front of the referee. I don't mean he was 'in front' in the general context [most defenders were that], but he actually wandered, directly in front, in the direct, front-on eyeline of the referee. Dorn's position was such as to obscure the view of any possible knock on by us, from the referee - and he still didn't blow.

Seeing Dorn there [he was within ten, so definitely interfering], play went the other way, when we really ought to have run at him and forced the issue. Of course, a couple of PTBs later, a Cas one, he blew us offside and Clark scored his long distance try...the difference between being switched on or not, I guess.

Incidentally, I fully accept that the Bulls take the usual liberties with this - as do all clubs - but I've never seen anything so blatant before. This was just thumbing the nose and I'm still amazed he got away with it.

So allegedly Hicks "never" checks whether a team is offside at any PTB.

You see, it's just this sort of OTT hyperbolic nonsense that irritates me. if this were anything even close to the truth, do you seriously suggest he would have a job as a professional referee?

I too have seen cases often where many of a team are offside but offside is not blown. That would be back to the perennial argument as to whether to either penalise like a maniac until they "get the lesson" or let the game flow unless the offside gains the team an advantage etc.

Clearly, currently one standing order to the refs is to above all let the game flow, as the number of penalties, especially in critical games, is usually quite low. On balance I prefer it the way it is.

My irritation with the PTB is the default setting of the refs to penalise the defending side.

Several times during a game, the attacking player takes a couple of steps forwards off the mark, the defending player tries to hold his ground at the mark. This then generates "messing around at the PTB". The ref (majority of the time) will penalise the defender rather than the player who has walked off the mark and caused the problem in the first place. Good gamesmanship I suppose, seeing the opportunity for either 1) a fast PTB or 2) a penalty. No downside for the attacking team.

I laugh at scrums though when a team needs a breather and they "forget" that 6 men go in the scrum and the ref has to remind them...

100% agree about the walking forward - why should the defender concede an extra couple of metres?

I disagree with FA about giving penalties.

Players are professionals. They 'bend' the rules because they believe there is an advantage to be gained by doing so, penalising them disabuses them of that perception. It only needs the referee[s] to say, "go offside and I'll penalise you", and then TO DO SO and the professionals will soon decide there is no point. It's just like all the other laws in life, drivers break the speed limit because they feel there is little chance of being caught - and largely they are right.

It's sad that the RFL, who have no concept of the game of rugby league make and up hold the rules. The game has moved on since it's conception and the drafting of the rules. The whole rule book should be burnt (along with Red Hall) and a new modern rule book written (posted on the internet, available from Amazon). This would take into account the wishes of the players, teams, managers, owners and the fans. All can put forward their ideas to be included (or not included0 in the new rules. I'm sure there will be a deluge of rule changes.

There have been instances of attempts at zero-tolerance refereeing, I seem to recall, and AFAIR none of them went well and all were quietly abandoned.

I think the reason is in the nature of the beast; if it really is zero tolerance then if a player is one inch offside, then it is a penalty. Every time. Players will not (can not) retire 11 metres as that gives too big an advantage to the opposition especially over 80 minutes and so HAVE to be close to the edge which will inevitably lead to glut of penalties in every game - whether the players have "learned their lesson" or not.

Or take holding down or general PTB offences. Clearly there comes a split second where the player has held on too long. Except that split second would not be the same for every person in the ground nor indeed for every ref. How then DO you penalise "every holding down"?

Or players not actually playing the ball at the PTB with their foot. that might be an easier one, and it irritates me to see half hearted wafts while the ball is rolled back, in blatant contravention of the rule, but do you want to see a pen at every or every other PTB?

The last case I remember was an edict that in goal line defence, players had to have both feet on or behind the line. It sounds deceptively simple and easy, so why didn't it work? (I presume we agree it was a failure?)

Now, half the team is never properly onside in goal line defence, but is the overlooking of this a detriment to the game? Would the game be better if in every game the wingers kept getting pinged for stepping forward? I doubt it.

I've never been as disappointed with the level of refereeing as I have over the past 2 seasons.

Yes they do have a tough job, but they appear to have been given instructions to keep play going at all costs (with regards to offside), as a result, they don't enforce as well as they should.

I think the RFL attempt to referee a game like they do in the NRL, but the NRL teams are far more disciplined and tend not to 'toe the line', unlike here. When players in the UK chance their arm, they get away with it, therefore 10 meters quickly becomes 8, which is then the norm in a game.

Also, the ref's seem to go with the 'easy' option when a player knock's on. Too many times I have seen a player lose control of the ball, which then somehow results in the ref blowing for a penalty against the defending team for interfering.

The younger referees seem reluctant to make to tough decisions. To be fair to James Child, he's probably one of the most consistent referees at present, not scared of making the tough calls.

I don't think you can ever get rid of all the indiscretions in a game, it's just asking too much, especially when referees themselves don't always give [iexactly[/i the same interpretation or time to complete something. I do think the PTB could be cleaned up though, it's a pretty objective decision; was the ball played backwards [iby the foot[/i or was it not. Referees are supposed to check if a 'genuine attempt' is made - well, imo, if full time, pro rugby players can't manage to do that correctly 99 times out of 100 then it's prima facie evidence that they're not making a genuine attempt, end of. Heavens sake, the under eights can manage far better than that. In fact seeing the U8s [inot[/i playing the ball correctly is as big a shock as seeing a lot of the pros do it right.

While we all to some degree get on the refs backs we need to remember that it’s the coach that at all clubs instructs players to push things to the limit. Player will try anything to slow down the PTB in defence and those attacking will try and milk a penalty for holding down. It must be a nightmare to officiate it consistently.

The 10m rule made the PTB the be all and end all of dominating the game. If you can get a quick play the ball you dominate. It’s as simple as that. Coaches like Bellamy and Maguire and their protégés have turned dominate the PTB into a fine art. The poor refs have a job on to keep up. In Oz they brought in an extra one to cut down on the wrestlemania. So I can see what a difficult job it is. Especially for one man in the middle.

Yeah, I agree with that bullseye.

The balance between attack and defence is what keeps the fans on the edge of their seats, stray too far one way, or the other, and the game suffers as a spectacle. Coaches will always look for ways of......shall I call it, 'getting the best out of rule changes'; that is their job, I suppose. It is a constant battle between the coaches and the administrators, but I still feel that allowing all the transgressions is a slippery slope though, and if it [ireally is[/i necessary, for maintaining this balance, to allow throwing the ball between the legs, then so be it.

The one thing I'd ask is that these changes in the way the game is played are reflected in the rule book and not accepted as weasely [is there such a word?] 'interpretations'. What we have now for instance, with players making a genuine effort [ito pretend[/i to play the ball correctly is just laughable and only allows free ammunition to those who want to do our game down. Or maybe it's a joke and disgrace..