Totally agree about Silverwood's improved standing being a good indicator, although I wouldn't personally say he's the best now, I think Bentham.

Going back to that bunch of referees, I'd say that they all had faults, but the major plus most had was that they were largely consistent. Klein I thought kept a skinny 10, so it tended to make games a bit more of a dour up the middle game, but TBF he did it to both sides. Kirkpatrick was a pretty good ref IMO, Ian Smith OK, and Russell Smith was one I always thought was rubbish at the ground but then usually realised I was wrong when I watched it back on TV, and pretty spot on when reffing others so it pointed to him being a good ref.

It's actually this latter point that reinforces my belief that the standards genuinely have slipped. It's easy to think a referee has done wrong by your own team, and then marvel in a neutral game 'why can't he ref all our games like this?', when really the difference is that your own bias has been put to one side. The last couple of years, however, I have found that no matter which teams I'm watching play I think the officiating has been lacking and usually that one side could have more cause for complaint than the other.

This is my main gripe about having 2 refs, they can both ref the same game in a totally different style.

That's a very valid point. I personally think that what is needed more than an additional ref is for the existing refs to show more faith in their linesmen and allow them/demand more responsibility with offsides, forward passes etc, so that they can focus more on the ruck etc and get it right. I also agree with Cod'ead about having officiating teams working together regularly, it makes so much sense I can't think of why it is not already the case.

thank you very much, in that one sentence you have expertly, superbly and without error backed up my earlier post about refs!!



No one doubts its a tough job, like being a copper no one doubts its a tough job but equally there are many who are i am sure in it for their own glorification and believe their own hype AND then consider it beyond question and the system backs them to the hilt much the same as the RFL
However it still does not make them good honest coppers OR refs
AND for your info thats from someone whom reffed both youth Rugby back in the 70s/80s and spent 4 years as a copper so dont even think about telling me there is no such thing as a bent ref or copper ok
But you carry on congratulating yourself and stroking your inner thigh with your own hype whilst those of us with an eyeball either side of their nose (not one in the middle like you) continue to see that we are suffering the worst officials on any pitch in any sport on the planet!!!

Thats a MEGA valid point that officiating teams should work together as a team ongoing and be judged as a team not as an individual BUT the whistler has to use the opinion of that team around him and not as we see all the time over rulle or ignore them, i think back to the hundreds of times i wished I had a credible linesman to help me but had to settle for someones dad who were never quite as straight as they should be


Another thing we need to bring in is live help from a tv off field official at all matches even those not televised which would help the game no end.
One of the biggest issues is i believe the lack of funding involved and the salary they recieve which is never going to attract the glut of refs we really need to be able to drop one for a crap showing now and then ...
same as grass roots rugby a lack of funding..
BUT we also need to be able to ask questions when we feel the need, the RLF and the refs have never been and never will be transparent in any way

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=534315&tsmp=1344445792

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=534315&tsmp=1344445792

agree with this bit of the linked artical

Instead of railing against referees and refereeing standards though, the spotlight should really be turned on those in charge of the rules - the lawmakers rather than the policemen if you like.

Rugby League's USP ought to be it's simplicity, but years of tinkering have produced a set of rules with vast grey areas between the black and the white. Think how you'd describe a game to a new spectator. How many times do you think you'd describe an incident as "well it looked like x to me, but the ref's obviously seen it as y"? I do it all the time on radio commentary. A series of minor tweaks over the years has left a lot of what happens down to interpretation rather than one thing being OK and another not and that breeds inconsistency which breeds frustration and anger in fans, players, coaches and club officials. Currently, that frustration and anger is being vented at the referees. It needs channeling to the rulemakers.

This is interesting. Could be a good idea: www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 246um.html

This is interesting. Could be a good idea: www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 246um.html

Hit a raw nerve have we .I have told you before get to know porters before you call them names .Or are you small minded person that only your opinion counts .The fact are I wouldn't put 2 refs on the pitch from this country because 1 is bad enough.I will tell you once again I KNOW THE LAWS OF BOTH CODES and have played under the laws of those codes ps I have to shout you appear to be deaf

2 refs are the way to go, I've just watched the Catalans game and the ref needs help with the line and controlling the ruck.

We don't have the quality. We barely have enough decent ref's to cover every SL game nevermind doubling that figure.

The Nrl did it without the experienced ref's.

Just have the junior ref policing the rucks.