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.

At first glance he performed well in terms of neutrality, but poor in general.

A deeper analysis might ask - was his bad performance influenced by the fact he wasn't neutral?

Of course it was; even if only subconsciously.

Neutrality removes any issues of that nature. The ref need worry only about the performance and the media only about the quality of the football as any semblance of bias is removed.

Strange how yet once again it was never the players who were at fault.

I have always been of the opinion that if the players played by the rules, then it shouldn't never matter who the the match officials are and they would have very little to do.

Professionals will always bend rules as much as possible.

The idea of no infringements is a nice theory. Unfortunately for that scenario, humans play and not robots.

I thought the worst decision today cam from the only neutral on the field. That foot on the line should have been spotted.

It was a shocker and strengthens the case for putting more money into international officials.