Because reffing a game these days is difficult as the game is so much quicker. He has to make at least four decisions every play the ball- Are the markers straight? Is the defence onside? Was there a knock on? Was there a foul? - That's six times four for every set. If a set takes a minute the ref is making about 2,000 decisions a game. If he gets 99% right he still gets twenty wrong every game.

Now - I've no idea what is humanly possible. Maybe it IS possible to get 100% of your decisions right - but I doubt it. The ref needs all the help he can get from technology. In this instance Thaler, who is the best ref in the game, by a distance, was let down badly not by the technology but by Alibert.

We currently have the best selection of refs and TJs we have ever had. By some margin. There are plenty of moaners who all, to a man, also happen to be world leading authorities on refereeing, and they unanimously agree that all the refs are bent, useless, blind etc. This is an extremely childish view but hey.

Oh, and these muppets all agree we should "sack all the refs", and "get some better ones". Yes, that'll do it.

You're polarising the debate in such a way that I don't think actually exists.

There are some good, professional officials involved in RL now, that's for sure; and yet week after week, there are inconsistent and inexplicable decisions being made. The two main problems, in my view, are that a) the TJ's are not used in anything like an efficient way and b) the current VR system requiring the ref to judge on something he hasn't seen, hence his referral to the VR in the first place, is fundamentally flawed. On-field ref's often cop a lot of flak for issues that arise from those two problems - so resolving them wouldn't be a bad place to start.

Fundamentally of course, the single biggest problem with officiating RL is that players are coached to cheat - and some of them do it very well - so down with that sort of thing.

if Thaler saw the incident clearly enough to give a detailed explanation to the VR about what happened, he should have trusted his judgement and called the decision without referring it.

Doesn't excuse Alibert's mistake, but it could have been avoided

Which makes sense, except he was explaining it to Alibert based on what he was seeing on the big screen replays, having been unsighted for the actual incident itself.

It existed in the post I replied to. Was kinda the point, really.


That's just hyperbole. Is it possible to get 100% consistency or anywhere near? Er, no. Therefore by definition, there is always inevitable "inconsistency" to some degree, as in all but the most clear cut decisions, there are arguments
a) whether it was or was not an infringement / try / in touch / whatever; and
b) even if technically it was an infringement,whether a penalty should be given.

Inexplicable decisions? I doubt that very much. I'd bet any ref would be able to explain any given decision. Of course, he might have made a mistake, but the point of a ref is that you have to have someone to make the decisions and so that's what they do.

Or, if we have "week after week... inexplicable decisions" maybe you could post a selection of this weeks, and explain in what way you feel they were "inexplicable".


I don't understand your point, but it is the ref's job to make the calls, the TJ mainly rules touch, some forward passes, and reports serious foul play the ref has not seen. I for one wouldn't want the TJs upgraded to sort of vice-referees, if that's what you mean.


No, your argument is bogus. If there was no VR then the ref WOULD HAVE TO rule 100% on every single one of these calls. And they do. The fact he has not specifically seen X does not absolve the ref from having to rule on X.

If the ref not only literally "has not seen" X, still from his experience and also assumptions from watching intently the whole incident being ruled upon, he must make the call. So if he doesn't see the ball being grounded; but after the event when all the players get up, he sees the "tryscorer" at the bottom with ball on ground, he might reasonably see no grounds to decline a try. Are you dissatisfied with that? I'm not. This is where your case becomes bogus - because in this and similar situations, we ALREADY DO require the ref to judge on something he hasn't seen.

All that the new system does is (a) allow a second look at video from different angles, so that perhaps the VR CAN SEE that which the ref could not; and (b) tells us what the ref's decision would have been have there been no VR, so unless the VR is sure that is wrong, it will stand. And so it should, giving the ref the respect and primacy he deserves.

Incidentally I have for a long time bemoaned the many mistakes that have been made by VRs over the years, and there is no similar saving grace foir them - if you have all the angles and the slo mo, you shouldn't screw up, but they do. That is not a ref criticism though, IMHO the ability to be an on-field ref doesn't necessarily make you a good VR. They should concentrate on finding a way to eliminate the VR screw-ups. But these are not the fault of the on-field ref.

'"

It brings up a good point this issue, maybe the ref should continue to discuss the try/no try during the replays and liaise with the Vr to come to a better decision.

Isn't that how RU works, or have I got that completely wrong? Seen their lot send a try up to the VR after looking at the screen while the conversion is being lined up which seems weird.

So, this bunker system in the NRL: working pretty well, isn't it? Seems to have largely (can never be entirely) addressed the issue of consistency, and decisions seem logical and reasonably swift.

I never understood the need to transport personnel around to act as VR in the first instance.
With the proper kit installed they could effectively interact with one another and make exactly the same decisions whilst each VR official is sat in their own home.
Bunker...ffs, it's a studio somewhere or OB portakabin if you have to, gimmicky nonsense.

Electing to have three officials adjudicating to make the decision is good and should in theory reduce errors.
However still feel that it should be 'is it a try, yes or no', not have the weight of the on field official with often the worst view (otherwise why send it for review) being in play with "I've got a try/no try".
By definition you are not sure and have niether and that weight of not being sure and not having the best view/recalling what happened counts for a lot when it shouldn't.

Thaler dropped this week according to love rugby league.

That is a scandal if true. It is Thierry Alibert (aka Teary Halibut) who deserves to be dropped. Benjamin Thaler has been defending the integrity of the game.

Broke the rules, got punished.

Just as a player or coach would. Correct decision - agree or disagree with the video ref you can't break protocol and have an argument with him in the middle of a game.

Although Alibert should have been fired years ago.

Who would be a referee.
If i was Thaler, why would i send anything to the VR? VR makes a clusterfsk of it and you get blamed by the players, fans and coaches. Empathise with a players frustration and you're publicly dropped.

You would think the refs coaches would understand that Thaler standing there defending those decisions would have meant he lost all respect of the players and only added to their frustration and made the game much harder to referee, you would think they understand that showing empathy with players would keep the game under control.

Then you remember Steve Ganson is coaching the referee's and you remember that respect of players and controlling a game were completely alien to him as a referee, and Ganson probably saw it as Thaler failing to take the opportunity to throw his weight around.

Added to that you have Cas fans cheering and supporting his demotion despite those decisions being a 12 point swing in their favour. Heaven knows how they would have reacted if the roles were reversed.

Nope, he's refereeing a big game for a change (Bulls v Sheffield)