If you are talking about the current trend for defenders reaching round the PTB to grab the arm of the attacker then it is a very fine line between hitting the arm & ball, how can every decision be the same? Or if you mean interfering in the tackle, trying to dislodge the ball, it's a skill that has always been there, it's increasingly difficult as a defender preventing the offload when stealing is not allowed. Unless you can read the mind of the defender it is completely impossible to know if there is intent or not. Every incident is individual, it is equally impossible to achieve consistency without psychic powers.

not every incident is 'indivdual' - far from it

take the case of football and the 'tackle from behind' - the dirctive from the FA was clear not long ago - any tackle from from behind will be penalised, end of - very rarely do you see such a tackle (even when the ball is won) go unpunished
or, any interference with the GK when going for the high ball will be punished with a free kick - how many times do you see the goalie not being protected like that nowadays ? answer = never, no contact is allowed
these are rules that era easily defined and easy to administer - there's no ambiguity

RL is the same - very few of the rules are ambigous, they are just misread by the officials who even have TJs plus the VR occasionally to get the call correct FFS !

I’m not sure what we are arguing – stripping the ball in the tackle was outlawed years ago. Are you suggesting every time the ball comes out in the tackle it must be a penalty to the attacking team?

Actually they do - it's called interpretations. I'm not talking about 'judgement calls' but how the rules are implemented. As an example, the law about using a shepherd (AFAIK) hasn't actually been changed but the way it is used changes season by season (if an interpretation ever [ilasts[/i a full season), it seems the refs , en bloc, have meetings pre season and decide to change things just to confuse everyone else - and often enough, change them back again, mid season, just to confuse us more.

And why are attacking players allowed to run in front of their ball carrier into the defensive line?

No they don’t. Just like the police decide whether a law is being broken or likely to be broken the officials interpret the laws of the game. Saying officials make the rules is completely wrong, they would have to invent a new offence for that to be the case.
The RFL obviously change the emphasis of the rules on an ongoing basis, as does the referee’s controller, usually in reaction to a perceived issue or because a pair of clueless numpties on Sky bang on repeatedly about something. I have no doubt whatsoever that the controller goes through the changes in emphasis, & any new rules, with all the clubs throughout the season. Similarly I am sure the referees brief the players before games on specific issues.

They aren't. HTH.

The RFL are dragging their heels with the officiating at matches it is blatantly obvious referees are struggling trying to get it right, they need to look at the whole way the games is policed e.g. amount of touch judges running up and down the line, amount of referees in the middle, the use of video for forward passes where tries are involved. At least make an attempt to help the whistle blower instead of just burying their heads in the sand.

Yes they do! Oh no they don't, it's fun this, isn't it!

But they do, as do the police incidentally, though in the case of the police it is ultimately decided by the court, which can, and sometimes does, tell them their interpretation of the law is wrong.

Yes I know the rules, as interpretted, are subjective; it is all 'if in the opinion of the referee', as we all know and couldn't in reality be any other way. In the end it boils down to whose job it is to "change the emphasis" (your words) and it should be the people who devise the rules in the first place who change what is or isn't allowed on the field of play, not the referees. It is their job, similarly to the police, to see that the laws of the game are observed, as written, not to "change emphasis" as and when they think it might be a good idea.

Exactly the same with referees & the judicial panel.



I didn't say the referees change the emphasis, they do not & should not, I said the controller (Cummins).

If that 's the case he shouldn't be; it's not his job.

When a change in the laws of the game is thought to be required, isn't there a whole committee who thrash out things like this? Putting forward points, and debating the rights and wrongs, bests and least worsts and coming up with a (hopefully) viable and coherent set of laws under which the game can be best played - and then one bloke can make amendments on a whim - well, actually I don't suppose we should be too surprised - this is RL!

I hate email teniis but am still not sure what you are comparing the tackle form behind to. It is not allowed, end of. Stealing the ball in the tackle, except one on one, is not allowed, end of. Are you saying that every time the ball comes out in tackle it must be a penalty to the attack?

what i'm trying to explain is that the rules, whoever they are made by be less ambigous and that officials become more consistent, that's all

the way to make them less ambigous is for Mr Cummins and his cronies to give much clearer guidelines to the officials

what's difficult to understand there ?