I said during the England v NZ game thread that only about 1% of games are really decided by the referee.

Archer and Co were probably within the 1%. They were that bad. Worst I have seen in international football for decades.

The gap on any given day between the big three remains such that conditions, referees and home ground advantage are major factors. I might add I mentioned the neutral refs issue prior to this tournament as an on-going cause for concern. That has been my view since they were dispensed with at the behest of my countrymen on the 1994 Kangaroo Tour.

My thoughts on the lack of composure issue for England (a failing caused by a lack of week in, week out intensity) are well known here but neutral refs remains a major blight on the RLIF and its lack of governance.

spoke to 2 guys that watched the game today and they both thought the ref. wasnt the best.

still ganson got the last final so this was to get even.

every 50/50 calls went against the poms which made the scoreline much worse than it needed to be

The awful benefit of doubt try turned the game, England on top with a 20m restart would have created a more balanced scoreline.
The ref performed to script, early penalties, give field position and tire them out defensively was the order given to him and he performed brilliantly.
They dont need the help FFS

Difference being he didn't perform like a bias clown.

And calls for neutral refs should REMAIN defeaning.

Frankly, that remains the low point of the tournament.

After today I'm more inclined to say it doesn't matter who refs an internationl, their nationality is irrelevant, what matters the most is whether they are good enough.

Archer was absolutely shocking. Alibert and The Klown are who I regard as the two worst refs I've ever seen. But, Alibert was fast-tracked a little too quickly through and its clear to see the bigger stage gets to him. The Klown had an inflated sense of ego and at times looked somewhat bent or, if not bent, had preferences.

Archer, I've concluded after today's match, isn't biased. He's just really, really poor. Poorer in fact than Alibert and The Klown. Some of the decisions were really dodgy, but the main issue was that it was clear in the first half that Aus were really trying hard to start a fight and NZ equally matched them with niggliness. Why he didn't have a word with the captains to settle the teams down I don't know. Thankfully it didn't kick off and ruin the match.

Rubbish.

That is EXACTLY what the ARL/RLIF would hope people will think.

NEUTRAL REFS is the moral of this story (2010 4N). That and how close the top 3 are and especially Australia and New Zealand.

What the ARL deliberately fielded a rubbish ref, so we think the most impportant thing is a decent ref and then next year they can line up a really good Oz ref for the Oz matches?

I'm not saying that I actually think the quality of ref is more important than nationality, I'm just saying that I'm shocked by how poor Archer was.

Anyone who saw the earlier games knows that.

Anyone who has watched any number of rugby league games he has ref'd knows that.

The fact is poor decisions can be excused when the ref is neutral. Not otherwise. The perception of bias is as important as whether or not bias actually exists. Fairly fundamental in fact.

Like FIFA, we will have to put up with poor decisions at times. It is a product of money and access to facilities and training. Poorer countries need help with their refs. Let's offer it.

Very much agreed

the calls for competent refs should be louder than for neutral refs. the nrl refs have shown over a number of years that they ar far below the standard required. i found it hilarious that their childish insistence on having their own ref, despite him being the worst ref in the competition, came back to bite them on the .

It is called karma.