If England play well and don't throw high shots, lay on far too long in the tackle, retreat 10 metres and stand square at each ptb....then the nationality of the referee is not important. We have to not give the ref a chance to be deemed bias against us.

He can't penalise us if we don't break the rules can he?

Anyway, my personal preference would be for both SL and the NRL to make a decision on the number of referees needed and then play it across the board...it's pretty sad that two competitions playing the same sport can't do that. Wouldn't happen in any other main stream sport.

If we all had two referees, then this final could have an Aussie and an Englishman in charge. End of.

But this guy isn't used to refereeing solo is he ? Its a 2-man job in the NRL.

Having said that I'd still prefer him to Bentham.

Perenara did his job perfecly for Sheens by ensuring an Aussie win at Wembley AND officiating so badly that he wouldn't get the final.

It's a myth that Perenara had a terrible game at Wembley. He made one outright bad decision for the Briscoe try. The Williams tackle wasn't a sending off in rep football, in my opinion, although some could argue it was. Either way, we see worse errors and worse performances every single week in Super League, many of them from Phil Bentham.

Cecchin was terrible both ways in the NZ vs Eng game, as outlined above. Bentham has also been poor.

I agree it doesn't look right not having someone of another nationality reffing the game, but RL doesn't have the geographical spread to support it. But it's only looks, not reality. Even if it was Alibert, it's a ref working in the SL competition in England, or if it's Perenara it's a ref working for the NRL in Australia. The potential conflict-of-interest is identical to that with Bentham and Cecchin.

It's only because RL fans in this country have spent so bloody long listening to those bozos on Sky gasping about merry whistle-blowers for 60 minutes out of every 80 that this is even an issue. It's all about the players not the referees, and I hope the England squad are spending their time figuring out ways to play a Rugby game better than the Australians rather than manufacturing miserably chippy outrage over the nationality of a referee when we already have the advantage of a home test match with a home crowd.

you could argue it doesnt really matter about the decisions he gives against us - its the decisions that he gives against Australia that matter more. I am pretty confident that England will remain disciplined, as they have all competition.

Will he send an Australian player off? Unlikely, which means the Aussie players can get stuck in and do what they want to Tomkins, Chase and others, knowing that the worst that can happen is a penalty against them. If Ganson was in charge, it would put a seed of doubt in their mind before they smash the elbow into someones face, or go in with a swinging arm.

This game needs a strong ref, who isn't afraid to give the big decisions - regardless of the impact.

I'm sorry, but you're deluding yourself if you think the Australians' tactics for this game will be to turn it into a streetfight or look to break jaws. They're not New Zealand. Their tactics will be the same as they always are: complete sets, play position and play football. That's how they win so many bloody games against us, and that's how they'll expect to win this one.

Since when has a high tackle not been against the rules in Rep football?

Of course it was a foul. There are different grades of intent and danger within high tackles, and in my opinion that one wasn't a straight sending off. I added the "in rep football" bit because more leeway is usually given in SoO and Test matches. But as I said, I can see the argument that it was refereeing mistake. It's just that we're acting all of a sudden like English referees are amazing when I've seen two RL matches at Wembley this year and I know which ref was worse...

Archer did.

I have no doubt this clown will too, anything to help out the people who employ him in Aus.

Added to that is the fact he will probably take the Aussies back a skinner 10 than England and let the Aussies hold down forever whilst England will have to jump off straight away. Forget any 50/50s going Englands way too.

To be honest i'm not overly fussed about Crecchin. He had a pretty good game against NZ. A weaker ref could have lost complete control of that game. Bentham hasn't performed well in any of his big games. Perenara has reffed superbly for the Wales game and at Wembley, except for 10 minutes. Bu youhave got to be on your game for 80 in such a big game. A 10 minute blip like he had could prove costly.. Crecchin is a good decsion IMO.

Let's not forget the infringement that plagues the NRL - hands and knees in at the ptb.

Can't see Cechin producing quite such a patriotic performance as Archer (although, in fairness, to do so would be quite difficult.)

Just can't understand why the Aussies are so determined to rob International RL of any credibility. Are there any other sports that don't use neutral referees for internationals?

regardless of any bias, having an Aussie ref the game when the Aussies are playing gives a perception of bias.

a big 50/50 decision with 30seconds to go in a drawn game, if it goes to Australia he is biased and giving a decision based on his nationality, if he gives it the other way he is overcompensating. Either way the motives for giving a decision are question and that is a question that wouldnt be asked with a neutral referee.

On the on report aspect, i dont understand why 'on report' means "i didnt see it properly, refer to disciplinary to look at it again and recommend what punishment if any should be given" and not "I didnt see it properly, refer it to the fully trained and accredited referee sat in the stands with access to multiple tv angles which are instantly available, lets take 2 minutes for our fully trained and accredited referee sat in the stands to look at it again and recommend what punishment if any should be given"

How any one can argue that this didn't warrant a red card when the disciplinary board then subsequently gave Williams a one match suspension for intentional foul play, is beyond me! It was a straight red and the disciplinary board effectivley back that up with a decision to suspend. Had he been sent off, as he should have been, then he might have got sending off sufficient.

As for the, their is a bit more lee-way given in test matches, well tell that to Morley and Edwards, who quite rightly saw red for similar offences in test matches.

The report system is no longer fit for purpose in televised matches and ref's are able to opt out of making big decisions and we saw both Cecchin and Perenara do exactly that, for offences that lead to the disciplinary board handing out suspensions totalling 4 matches! Also, both Luke & Smith decided to drop their appeals... a wise move given that NRL allow them to treat pre-season games as part of an suspension.

As I said before, in a short series such as this then ref's need to be forced to make decisions, by removing the report system or remove the report system and use the video if they feel unsighted in respect of foul play.