I'm really enjoying the NRL coverage on Premier. If you have the time, you can watch every game in full. Their PTB seems to work like a charm, in every game. I can't think of a single game where I have felt the game has been spoiled or slowed down by tacklers pitching camp on a tackled opponent. Whereas in [isome[/i SL games, (and leaving out of the equation Bulls games, where obviously a bias may cloud judgement) on Sky, the holding down and delaying tactics at the PTB can quickly become really annoying to watch.

Why the difference?

In the NRL the general overall position is that tacklers do their thing, then jump off the tackle and the game flows on. They seem to be, across the board, fit enough to cope with the extra-quick shuttle runs this produces. If we played Aus under that interpretation then IMHO we would be murdered as we couldn't cope with the speed of game. Yet there have been a handful of Sky games which have been played at similar pace, and under similar reffing PTB conditions. But the majority are not. I'm scratching my head as to why our refs are allowing so much messing about, in so many games.

Perhaps refs have been told to be less strict on the PTB in order to even up the contest? It might not have been put exactly like that but that may be the intended result.

I agree that if we applied the NRL PTB interpretation over here in every game it'd be better but I'm not sure all our players are fit enough to cope so we could see more blowouts on the scoreboard.

It must be something like that. I've been saying for weeks that there seemed to have been a sudden directive to avoid giving penalties wherever possible. It can't be an accident that all of a sudden all the refs usually play the first half hour with no penalties except the blindingly obvious ones, but it seemed to go overnight from penaltythons to that.

Ref's are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Another week it is a barrage of criticism for ref's penalising every offence & not letting the game flow. If you let the game flow you have to accept borderline decsions are going to be ignored. I agree that they need to decide which it is going to be, make an announcement to all teams & the media, stick by it for half a season then review it.

We were poor in the first half and did'nt deserve a win, the second half improvment was encouraging. Tim Roby was not the reason we lost but he is by far the worst ref i've seen this season, one bloke behind me said we should give him a rule book in brail and i am told that the Radio Leeds comentators asked who was ref today Tim Roby or Sam Tompkins.

To some, yes, but I have this theory that actually most fans don't have that much gripe with the refs. It is just the vocal minority that just make it seem as if there's more criticism than there is.


Well, we've had the "zero tolerance" debate many times, IMHO as long as both teams are seemingly doing their best to keep to the rules, then I'd rather the benefit of the doubt be given to all marginal and all questionable calls in favour of keeping the game flowing.


Not ignored, the ref makes a decision, that decision is to let it go. Did you mean borderline infringements? I think this can be dealt with on the fly, and should be. If players are taking a bit too long in the tackle, the ref can shout warnings while not immediately penalising. Similarly with many other offences, but in context (for example, player A only gets back 9 not the full 10, if he seemed to make an effort and isn't directly involved in the play, let it go, or if in doubt, a running warning; but if he makes a tackle from there, then penalise. (I know that good refs in good form do basically often do the above anyway).


Agreed, though I'd prefer a decision for the season and, fine tuning apart, stick with it.

The criticism is a direct result of the inconsistency in approach. For example one week anything goes at the ruck and another week the pea is blown out of the whistle. As you say they need to decide what they're doing and all stick to it and let everyone know what they're doing and why. If they feel the need to change then say so and why.

They also have to publicly declare they will pay no attention to the puerile, ignorant garbage eminating from the gobs of Eddie & Stevo.

Does anyone pay any attention to them anymore?

You assume everyone is as perceptive as you and I.

. People refer to not blowing the whistle as, "Letting the game flow", when it's patently the pole opposite - how is allowing players to set up camp over an tackled attacker, "allowing the game to flow"? 'cos I'm baffled.

There is a rule book. All teams and officials should play to the rules. Any deviation will lead to:-
All officials are cheats, don't know what they are doing etc..
Players taking advantage, laying on, pinching yards etc..
Fans become frustrated, angry etc..
It should not be too difficult in these days with all the means of distributing information that the RFL can and should explain changes, interpretation of the rules etc..
It's the lack of responsibility by the RFL who leave it to the poor officials to shoulder the blame. The RFL only seem to want to take the praise and credit without any recall to what's happening in the real world.