Do we really need 8 officials at each game?

2 referees, 2 touch judges, 2 video referees (or in goal judges), 1 reserve referee and 1 match commissioner.

Has there ever been any research into whether more officials equals more correct decisions? If so, why stop at 8?

In my mind this is just another step in the "look at me" culture that the referees seem to have adopted recently.

I don't think it's that at all and you've got to remember that the 2 in-goal judges do very little except when a try is scored. There is only 1 video ref (no, not Highlander). The reserve ref has no input on reffing, neither does the match commissioner. So in most games at most times you've got 3 people to make decisions. The ref & 2 touch judges. Who, aside from having a multitude of decisions to make every few seconds (ie every play/tackle) there are plenty of situations where these 3 officials are unsighted and have to guess. For instance where an attacker runs the ball in and either turns himself or is turned by the defence so that he's facing his own posts. Not one of the officials can see the ball at this point. Another, roving, official could.
But the biggest benefit would be at the ruck or as tackles are being made. Because the roving official wouldn't have to be stood marking the 10 for the defence like the ref has to, he'll be stood watching the ruck/tackle unfold and can advise players on when to roll away/don't lift that leg etc and can advise the ref on what happened, ie was it a strip/knock-on/interference etc

They absolutely hate it in Aus though. The way our refs are trained we would end up with a penalty strewn nightmare.

A look at this weeks Referee appointments would suggest at least TWO under 19's games will trial 2 refs again this weekend!

No need for 2 Refs on the pitch when you already have 2 touch judges and at many games a video ref as well. The touch judges are connected to the ref via a radio are they not? Why can't they let the ref know when teams are offside which would let the ref concentrate on the rook. Give the two numpties running the line more things to call, they have very little to do really.

How do u know? Crusher Kleal has said to go to back to 1, seems as tho M Ennis doesn't like them either, Cam Smith complained the other week. Ennis & Smith, those two giving advice on referees would be like asking Nigel Farraaaaaage and N Griffin for advice on some asylum seekers' applications.

But I'm glad Ennis has signed for us, prefer him to M Lichaa, who's seems to have too much of a touch footballers mentality about him.

With 2 refs on the pitch would we need in goal judges? The ref in the line should be able to look at groundings therefore it could end up with less officials than what we have now.

It's been a disaster in NRL, rfl need their heads testing if they are going to waste their money on this.

Rubbish, absolute pants Perth boy. R ya dehydrated? Boil sum sea water buddy, water from your tap on stop?

As a ref, I think this is completely unnecessary. There are already three officials, which is plenty of eyes to see everything on the pitch. The problem we have is that we simply do not use the touch judges effectively, despite them being wired for communication with the ref.

In my view, it is a simple case of having the ref going back the ten with the furthest TJ from the PTB, and the nearest TJ to the PTB staying level with it to watch for infringements. This allows the referee to effectively police offside, and the ruck is then monitored by the TJ. If the TJ calls foul, then the ref automatically awards it irrespective of whether he saw it or not.

Alternatively, have both TJs retreating 10 meters to mark the line, allowing the ref to stay close to the ruck and police that. If the line moves up too fast, the TJs give the call to the ref who automatically awards a penalty.

Basically, I don't understand why we would need to bring in a second referee to perform a role which could already be performed by one of the two TJs.

There is 2 refs at tonight's Cas u 19 game.

I've never really understood the reasons for the TJ's current positions and point.

I'd agree the TJ's should hold the line for offside.

In effect given technology nowa days the offside could be automated. I know some will baulk at the idea, but you could easily have 2 markers on the touchline that are automated and move to be 10meters away from the ball. Giving a line at all times, the only issue would be about players infringing on that mark. If it was automatically penalized, watch the fans go from moaning about biased refs, to clammouring for biased refs as the automated system catches too many players breaking the rules.

But I'm getting way ahead of myself, I'd agree ref, watches the play the ball and TJ's marks the offside. WOuld also keep the ref out of the defensive line therefore stop them being used as a possible shepard by smart players.

Rob Hicks and Ben Thaler will referee in a trial at Leeds U19 v Hull KR U19 tomorrow.

The touch judges should police the defensive line while the referee polices the ruck.

It's created inconsistency, poor flow, indecision and lack of authority here from the refs. The game is slower than ever, more messing about in play of ball and no more accuracy in decisions. All that for boy bling the costs. There is much talk in the NRL about going back to one ref.